Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53683 

serve counsel for petitioner as follows: 

Kenneth C. Howard Jr., Esq., Baker & 

Hostetler LLP, 1050 Connecticut Ave., 

NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 

20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adrienne Y. Denysyk, 

adrienne.denysyk@fcc.gov, Media 

Bureau, (202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

09–178, adopted October 6, 2009, and 

released October 7, 2009. The full text 

of this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, 

CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS (http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This 

document may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 

1–800–478–3160 or via e-mail http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts are 

prohibited in Commission proceedings, 

such as this one, which involve channel 

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for 

rules governing permissible ex parte 

contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television, Television broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.622 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.622(i), the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments 

under Ohio, is amended by adding 

channel 22 and removing channel 10 at 

Cincinnati. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Clay C. Pendarvis, 

Associate Chief, Video Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E9–25236 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. 0909171277–91322–01] 

RIN 0648–XR74 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Threatened and 

Not Warranted Status for Distinct 

Population Segments of the Spotted 

Seal 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12–month 

petition finding; status review, request 

for comments 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a 

comprehensive status review of the 

spotted seal (Phoca largha) under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Based 

on the findings from the status review 

and consideration of the factors 

affecting this species, we conclude the 

spotted seal exists as three (3) distinct 

population segments (DPS) within the 

North Pacific Ocean. These are the 

southern, Okhotsk, and Bering DPSs. 

Based on consideration of information 

presented in the Status Review, an 

analysis of the extinction risk 

probabilities for each of these DPSs, and 

assessment of the factors in section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA, we have determined 

the southern DPS is likely to become 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range in the 

foreseeable future, and should be listed 

as a threatened species. The Okhotsk 

and Bering Sea DPSs are not in danger 

of extinction nor likely to become 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of their ranges in the 

foreseeable future. Accordingly, we are 

now issuing a proposed rule to list the 

southern DPS of the spotted seal as a 

threatened species. No listing action is 

proposed for the Okhotsk and Bering 

Sea DPSs. Because the southern DPS 

occurs outside the United States, no 

critical habitat can be designated. We 

request comments and information 

related to this proposed rule and 

finding. 

DATES: Comments and information 

regarding this proposed rule must be 

received by close of business on 

December 21, 2009. Requests for public 

hearings must be made in writing and 

received by December 4, 2009. Notice of 

the location and time of any such 

hearing will be published in the Federal 

Register not less than 15 days before the 

hearing is held. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Kaja 

Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, 

Protected Resources, Alaska Region, 

NMFS, ATTN: Ellen Sebastian. You may 

submit comments, identified by ‘‘RIN 

0648–XR74’’ by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal Rulemaking Portal website at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK, 

99802–1668 

• Fax: 907–586–7557 

• Hand deliver to the Federal 

Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, Alaska 

INSTRUCTIONS: All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and generally will be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information 

(e.g., name, address) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

Confidential Business Information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. We will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable 

document file (PDF) format only. 

The proposed rule, maps, status 

review, and other materials relating to 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
53684 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

this proposal can be found on our Web 

site at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kaja 

Brix, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 586– 

7235; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office 

of Protected Resources, (301) 713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 28, 2008, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity to list the spotted seal as a 

threatened or endangered species under 

the ESA, primarily due to concern about 

threats to this species’ habitat from 

climate warming and loss of sea ice. The 

Petitioner also requested that critical 

habitat be designated for spotted seals 

concurrent with listing under the ESA. 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that when 

a petition to revise the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants is found to present 

substantial scientific and commercial 

information, we must make a finding on 

whether the petitioned action is (a) not 

warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) 

warranted but precluded from 

immediate proposal by other pending 

proposals of higher priority. This 

finding is to be made within one year 

of the date the petition was received, 

and the finding is to be published 

promptly in the Federal Register. 

After reviewing the petition, the 

literature cited in the petition, and other 

literature and information available in 

our files, we found that the petition met 

the requirements of the regulations 

under 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2) and 

determined that the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

This finding was published on 

September 4, 2008 (73 FR 16617). At 

that time, we commenced a status 

review of spotted seals and solicited 

information pertaining to the species. 

On September 8, 2009, the Center for 

Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia alleging that we failed to 

make the requisite 12–month finding on 

its petition to list the spotted seal. 

Subsequently, the Court entered a 

settlement agreement under which 

NMFS agreed to finalize the status 

review and submit this 12–month 

finding to the Office of the Federal 

Register by October 15, 2009. 

The status review is a compilation of 

the best available information 

concerning the status of spotted seals, 

including the past, present, and future 

threats to this species. The Biological 

Review Team (BRT) which conducted 

the status review was composed of 

expert marine mammal biologists and 

climate scientists from NOAA’s Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center and Pacific 

Marine Environmental Lab. 

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy 

Provisions 

There were two key tasks associated 

with conducting the ESA status review. 

The first was to delineate the taxonomic 

group under consideration; the second 

was to conduct an extinction risk 

assessment to determine whether the 

petitioned species is threatened or 

endangered. The ESA defines the term 

endangered species as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The term threatened species 

is defined as ‘‘any species which is 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ For this 

status review, we endeavored to assess 

the threats to the species to the extent 

such threats can be forecast into the 

future, keeping in mind that there is 

greater uncertainty the farther out the 

analysis extends. The potential 

consequences of the key threat of 

climate change have been projected 

through both 2050 and the end of the 

21st century, though under widelyvarying assumptions. The status review 

considered the climate projections 

through the end of the 21st-century in 

assessing the threats stemming from 

climate change, noting that there was 

less variation in the time period up to 

2050 compared to the period between 

2050 and 2100. NMFS used a similar 

approach to assess the extinction risks 

from other threats. While this review 

extended the climate modeling farther 

into the future than the one conducted 

during the ribbon seal status review, the 

two reviews’ respective approaches are 

consistent; NMFS has not determined 

here that 2100 constitutes ‘‘the 

foreseeable future.’’ There is too much 

variability beyond 2050 to make that 

determination. 

To be considered for listing under the 

ESA, a group of organisms must 

constitute a ‘‘species’’, which according 

to the ESA includes ‘‘any subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature’’. The 

term ‘‘distinct population segment’’ 

(DPS) is not commonly used in 

scientific discourse, so the USFWS and 

NMFS developed the ‘‘Policy Regarding 

the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act’’ to provide a 

consistent interpretation of this term for 

the purposes of listing, delisting, and 

reclassifying vertebrates under the ESA 

(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). We 

describe and use this policy below to 

guide our determination of whether 

DPSs exist for this species. 

Because there is little or no 

information to support a quantitative 

assessment of the primary threats to 

spotted seals, our risk assessment was 

primarily qualitative and based upon 

expert opinion of the BRT members. 

This is a common procedure we have 

used in numerous other ESA listing 

determinations (e.g., Pacific salmon, 

rockfishes, etc). 

Basic Species Biology 

A review of the life history and 

ecology of the spotted seal is presented 

in the Status Review (Boveng et al., 

2009). The spotted seal (also known as 

the largha seal) is a close relative of the 

harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Spotted 

seals are associated with ice during the 

spring breeding season. From March 

through May, spotted seals are 

principally found within the frontal 

zone of sea ice in the Bering Sea, Sea of 

Okhotsk, and Japan Sea. The spotted 

seal’s coat is usually a light-colored 

background with dark gray and black 

spots scattered quite densely on the 

body. Little information is published on 

the biological characteristics of spotted 

seal populations. Spotted seals have a 

lifespan of about 30 - 35 years. They 

become sexually mature at 3 - 5 years 

of age, varying over regions and time, 

and adult females usually give birth 

every year to a single pup which is 

nursed for 2 - 4 weeks and then 

abandoned to fend for itself. 

Spotted seals are widely distributed 

on the continental shelf of the Beaufort, 

Chukchi, southeastern East Siberian, 

Bering and Okhotsk seas, and to the 

south throughout the Sea of Japan and 

into the northern Yellow Sea. Their 

range extends over about 40 degrees of 

latitude from Point Barrow, Alaska in 

the north (∼71 N.) to the Yangtse River, 

China in the south (∼31 N.). The 

distribution of spotted seals is 

seasonally related to specific life history 

events that can be broadly divided into 

two periods: late-fall through spring, 

when whelping, nursing, breeding, and 

molting all take place in association 

with the presence of sea ice on which 

the seals haul out, and summer through 

fall, when the sea ice has melted and 

spotted seals remain closer to shore to 

use land for hauling out. 

The timing of the formation and 

persistence of sea ice, and thus the 

spotted seals use of sea ice habitat, 

roughly varies with latitude throughout 

the species’ range. Typically, life history 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53685 

functions such as molting, breeding, and 

whelping occur later in the year at 

higher latitudes. 

From late fall through spring, spotted 

seal habitat-use is closely associated 

with the distribution and characteristics 

of seasonal sea ice. The ice provides a 

dry platform away from land predators 

during the whelping, nursing, breeding, 

and molting periods. When sea ice 

begins to form in the fall, spotted seals 

start to occupy it immediately, 

concentrating in large numbers on the 

early ice that forms near river mouths 

and estuaries. In winter, as the ice 

thickens and becomes shorefast along 

the coasts, spotted seals move seaward 

to areas near the ice front with broken 

ice floes. Spotted seals can only make 

and maintain holes in fairly thin ice and 

have been known to travel 10 km or 

more over solid ice in search of cracks 

or open patches of water. Spotted seals 

usually avoid very dense, compacted ice 

and stay near the ice front. Recent 

research has also shown that, unlike 

spotted seals in more northerly 

latitudes, a portion of spotted seals in 

the Peter the Great Bay and the northern 

Yellow Sea use shore lands as haul-out 

sites for whelping, nursing, breeding, 

and molting (Wang, 1986; Trukhin, 

2005; Nesterenko and Katin; 2008; 

Nesterenko and Katin, 2009). Spotted 

seal terrestrial haul-out sites are usually 

remote and located on isolated mud, 

sand, or gravel beaches, or on rocks 

close to shore. 

Spotted seals appear to be generalist 

feeders with a varied diet. Most studies 

have found that fishes are spotted seals’ 

primary prey. Diet and regional and 

seasonal differences in foods of spotted 

seals are related to the seasonal 

distribution and abundance of their 

principal prey species. 

Species Delineation 

Under our DPS policy (61 FR 4722; 

February 7, 1996), three elements are 

considered in a decision regarding the 

status of a possible DPS as endangered 

or threatened under the ESA. These are: 

(1) ‘‘Discreteness of the population 

segment in relation to the remainder of 

the species to which it belongs, (2) The 

significance of the population segment 

to the species to which it belongs, and, 

(3) The population segment’s 

conservation status in relation to the 

Act’s standards for listing (i.e., is the 

population segment, when treated as if 

it were a species, endangered or 

threatened?). 

Discreteness: A population segment of 

a vertebrate species may be considered 

discrete if it satisfies either one of the 

following conditions: (1) It is markedly 

separated from other populations of the 

same taxon as a consequence of 

physical, physiological, ecological, or 

behavioral factors. Quantitative 

measures of genetic or morphological 

discontinuity may provide evidence of 

this separation, (2) It is delimited by 

international governmental boundaries 

within which differences in control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms exist that are significant in 

light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

Significance: If a population segment 

is considered discrete under one or 

more of the above conditions, its 

biological and ecological significance 

will then be considered in light of 

Congressional guidance (see Senate 

Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session) 

that the authority to list DPSs be used 

’’ sparingly’’ while encouraging the 

conservation of genetic diversity. In 

carrying out this examination, the 

Services will consider available 

scientific evidence of the discrete 

population segment’s importance to the 

taxon to which it belongs. This 

consideration may include, but is not 

limited to, the following: (1) Persistence 

of the discrete population segment in an 

ecological setting unusual or unique for 

the taxon, (2) Evidence that loss of the 

discrete population segment would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of a taxon, (3) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment represents the only 

surviving natural occurrence of a taxon 

that may be more abundant elsewhere as 

an introduced population outside its 

historic range, or (4) Evidence that the 

discrete population segment differs 

markedly from other populations of the 

species in its genetic characteristics. 

Because precise circumstances are likely 

to vary considerably from case to case, 

it is not possible to describe 

prospectively all the classes of 

information that might bear on the 

biological and ecological importance of 

a discrete population segment. 

Status: If a population segment is 

discrete and significant (i.e., it is a 

distinct population segment) its 

evaluation for endangered or threatened 

status will be based on the Act’s 

definitions of those terms and a review 

of the factors enumerated in section 

4(a). It may be appropriate to assign 

different classifications to different 

DPSs of the same vertebrate taxon’’ (61 

FR 4722; February 2, 1996). 

Evaluation of Discreteness 

A variety of evidence exists that is 

relevant to whether DPSs exist in 

spotted seals. Below we consider 

evidence from breeding concentrations, 

geographic barriers, breeding site 

fidelity, and genetics. 

Eight areas of spotted seal breeding 

concentrations have been identified in 

the species’ range (Figure 1). All are in 

the southern margins of the seasonally 

ice covered portions of the range.. The 

extent to which these areas are actually 

separated by gaps in the breeding 

distribution, at least in the Bering Sea, 

is not clear. Spotted seals are known to 

undertake foraging trips and seasonal 

movements of greater than 1000 km, 

easily sufficient to travel between 

adjacent breeding areas. Given this 

capability for long distance movements, 

only very large geographical barriers 

would have the potential for 

maintaining any discreteness that there 

may be between adjacent breeding 

concentrations. Distances between the 

Bering Sea breeding concentrations and 

the nearest Okhotsk Sea breeding 

concentrations are large relative to the 

distances between adjacent breeding 

concentrations within each of these 

seas, due to the great southerly extent of 

the Kamchatka Peninsula. 

It is not known whether the peninsula 

may be a physical obstacle to capable 

travelers like spotted seals. Nonetheless, 

spotted seals have habits that may cause 

the Kamchatka Peninsula to be an 

effective barrier between Bering Sea and 

Sea of Okhotsk breeding concentrations. 

The seals’ affinity for ice during winter, 

combined with the fact that the seasonal 

ice does not extend south to the tip of 

the peninsula, may help to confine 

spotted seals to their respective sea 

basins. They follow the ice front as it 

grows and expands to the south in 

autumn. In the Bering Sea, they make 

extensive east-west movements during 

the ice-covered period. But, they are not 

known to move extensively out of the 

ice field, or off of the continental shelf, 

at least in the Bering Sea. Therefore, the 

typical annual pattern would seem to be 

one of moving south and offshore as the 

ice forms, staying in the ice during the 

ice covered period, then moving back to 

the north and toward shore with the 

spring ice retreat. If this scenario is 

correct, and unless long-distance 

movements were undertaken during the 

period of extensive ice cover, the seals 

would be unlikely to disperse between 

the two seas. Most of the range of the 

species occurs in cold, seasonally ice 

covered, sub-Arctic waters, without 

conspicuous intrusions of warm water 

or conditions that would pose potential 

physiological barriers. There is, 

however, a considerable climatic 

difference from the southern to the 

northern extremes of the species’ range. 

Recognizing that factors causing 

differentiation of populations— 

especially behavioral factors—may be 

inconspicuous, the most reliable 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
53686 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

information is likely to come from 

quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuities. An 

important behavioral factor in 

maintaining separation of populations is 

natal philopatry, the tendency to 

reproduce in the same area as one’s 

birthplace. Because long-term tracking 

of individual spotted seals has not been 

practical or feasible, evidence for natal 

philopatry must be sought indirectly, for 

example, by analysis of genotypic 

frequencies or relatedness of individuals 

that reflect the history of breeding 

dispersal. About 1 to 10 migrants per 

generation between breeding areas is 

typically sufficient to preclude genetic 

discreteness. Thus, strong natal 

philopatry is required to maintain 

discreteness when no other barriers 

exist. 

Studies of differences in cranial 

morphology and helminth parasite 

fauna between putative breeding areas 

have been claimed to indicate 

population structure, but the statistical 

analyses were flawed and the sampling 

schemes and relevance of the 

population attributes used for these 

studies have also been criticized. The 

strength of the discreteness, and the 

details of which areas were reported to 

differ from other areas could not be 

relied upon until more rigorous 

sampling and analysis can be 

performed. 

Genetic information, when obtained 

from representative samples of animals 

in their breeding locales is likely to be 

a more direct reflection of population 

structure, and for that reason has 

become a common and important tool 

for supplementing or replacing 

morphometrics and other measures in 

studies of both phylogeny and 

population structure. Genetic data on 

population structure do exist from four 

studies of spotted seals. Mitochondrial 

DNA were examined from 247 spotted 

seals, and micro-satellite DNA were 

examined at 18 loci from 207 spotted 

seals, all sampled in the Chukchi Sea, 

Bering Sea, northwest Pacific Ocean 

(i.e., off the southeast coast of the 

Kamchatka Peninsula), Sea of Okhotsk, 

Sea of Japan, and Yellow Sea. The 

preliminary conclusions drawn from 

analyses of both types of marker 

supported a phylogeographic break 

between seals of the Yellow Sea-Sea of 

Japan region, and seals of the Okhotsk, 

Bering, and Chukchi seas (O’CorryCrowe and Bonin, 2009). Although the 

mtDNA haplotypic diversity was very 

high, that marker indicated that some 

structure may also exist between the Sea 

of Okhotsk and the Bering-Chukchi Sea 

seals. The nuclear markers on the other 

hand, did not support that structure, 

and even indicated that some gene flow 

may occur between the Yellow Sea-Sea 

of Japan sampling region and the 

Okhotsk-Bering Chukchi sampling 

region. The BRT placed somewhat 

greater weight on the mtDNA results 

than the micro-satellite results, which 

militates in favor of a discreteness 

finding for the southern population and 

is an approach that would be 

conservative of genetic diversity. 

Genetic research found low nuclear 

genetic variability among 176 spotted 

seals from Liaodong Bay, the primary 

breeding area in the Yellow Sea (Han et 

al., in press). This result was consistent 

with a previous report of low diversity 

in mtDNA haplotypes in this area. 

Moreover, a single base-pair insertion in 

the threonine tRNA gene was reported 

that was present in all seals from 

Liaodong Bay but not in samples tested 

from the Sea of Japan and Sea of 

Okhotsk, indicative of little or no 

immigration of females into the Yellow 

Sea population. Research also found 

high haplotypic diversity in mtDNA 

from 66 spotted seals sampled in three 

regions along the northern coasts of 

Hokkaido in autumn and winter. That 

study found no phylogenetic structure 

in the samples, and could not dismiss 

the possibility that spotted seals on the 

northwest Hokkaido coast during 

winter, in the far northeastern portion of 

the Sea of Japan, are part of the southern 

Sea of Okhotsk breeding concentration 

(Mizuno et al., 2003). This is currently 

the only information available on where 

in the Sea of Japan to place a boundary 

corresponding to the genetic break 

suggested by the micro-satellite DNA 

study described above. Because no 

samples from the Tatar Strait have been 

included in genetics studies, and the 

samples from Hokkaido are not 

obviously distinct from Sea of Okhotsk 

samples, the population division with 

the most support from the genetics 

evidence is a line along 43° N. latitude 

that divides the spotted seal range into 

a southern segment composed of the 

breeding concentrations of the Yellow 

Sea and Peter the Great Bay, and the 

remaining breeding areas (Tatar Strait, 

southern and northern Sea of Okhotsk, 

Karaginsky Gulf, Gulf of Anadyr, and 

eastern Bering Sea) making up a 

separate population. 

Although no single source of evidence 

provided unequivocal support for a 

division between the Bering Sea and the 

Sea of Okhotsk, the combined weight of 

evidence for discreteness found in the 

mtDNA results, and the strong potential 

that the Kamchatka Peninsula functions 

as a barrier between breeding 

populations, provides substantial 

support for designating the Bering Sea 

and Okhotsk spotted seals as separate 

DPSs. The BRT made this conclusion in 

the Status Review and we concur. 

We assessed the existence and 

implications of international 

governmental boundaries between these 

populations (see below), and 

determined that considerations of crossboundary management and regulatory 

mechanisms do not outweigh or 

contradict the proposed divisions based 

on physical, physiological, ecological, 

and behavioral grounds. Several 

conservation efforts have been 

undertaken by foreign nations 

specifically to protect spotted seals. In 

1978, Russia established the Far Eastern 

Marine Reserve in Russia’s Peter the 

Great Bay. The islands of the Reserve 

provide protection from human 

disturbance and suitable haul-out sites 

for spotted seals. The vast majority of 

the Peter the Great Bay spotted seal 

population uses the Marine Reserve 

during the spring, particularly for 

breeding and molting. Protection of 

breeding and pupping areas resulting 

from the establishment of the Marine 

Reserve may have resulted in some 

growth of the population. However, this 

population is still vulnerable to other 

threats outside of the reserve, such as 

by-catch or poaching by fishermen. 

Other than a permit requirement for 

taking any marine mammal, there is 

apparently no special protection for 

spotted seals throughout the remainder 

of Russia. 

The South Korean government 

designated the spotted seal as a natural 

monument in 1982, an endangered 

species (criteria II) in 2004, and a 

protected species in 2007, while the 

Chinese government designated them as 

a protected species (criteria I) in 1988. 

In 1983, China’s Liaoning provincial 

government banned the hunting of 

spotted seals, and in the early 1990s, 

two national protected areas were 

established for the protection of spotted 

seals in the Liaodong Bay area of China, 

including the Dalian National Spotted 

Seal Nature Reserve. However, as of 

2004, no conservation action, public 

awareness or education programs have 

been carried out for the species in this 

region, and in 2006, the Dalian Nature 

Reserve’s boundaries were adjusted to 

accommodate industrial development. 

So despite these protection efforts, the 

Liaodong Bay population continues to 

decline. There is no known information 

on spotted seals from North Korea, but 

it is unlikely that they are managed or 

protected there. 

Within the Bering Sea ice front, 

spotted seals move east and west 

between U.S. and Russian waters. When 

the ice retreats, some individuals move 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53687 

to the Alaskan coast and others move to 

the Russian coast. Therefore, the seals in 

any breeding group cannot be 

considered to be subject solely to the 

management and regulatory 

mechanisms of either country, and a 

division of the population along this 

international boundary would not be 

logical. Within the Sea of Okhotsk, the 

spotted seal breeding concentrations are 

solely within Russian waters. Finally, 

the conservation status and management 

of habitat (e.g., designation of reserves) 

are sufficiently similar between the 

Liaodong Bay and Peter the Great Bay 

breeding concentrations that dividing 

them on the basis of the China-RussiaKorea boundaries is unwarranted. In 

summary, considerations of crossboundary management and regulatory 

mechanisms do not outweigh or 

contradict the divisions proposed above 

based on physical, physiological, 

ecological, and behavioral grounds. 

Evaluation of Significance 

Here evaluate the significance of each 

of the 3 potential DPSs identified above, 

considering each of the 4 factors as 

described above. In the Southern 

potential DPS, some unknown portion 

of the Yellow Sea breeding 

concentration whelps and nurses on 

shore and all or nearly all seals breeding 

in Peter the Great Bay apparently now 

do so as well. Pups born ashore have 

been observed to enter the water prior 

to weaning in Peter the Great Bay, a 

behavior that is not typical among pups 

born on ice. Although it is not clear how 

long these behaviors have been 

occurring within the southern segment 

of the species range, they may reflect 

responses or adaptations to changing 

conditions at the range extremes, and 

their uniqueness may provide insights 

about the resilience of the species to the 

effects of climate warming. The spotted 

seal is the only phocid inhabiting the 

waters of the Yellow Sea and Sea of 

Japan (the southern potential DPS), 

whereas 4 to 5 phocid species overlap 

with the range of spotted seals in the 

Sea of Okhotsk and Bering Sea. 

Loss of the Okhotsk DPS would result 

in a substantially large, central gap in 

the range of the species. This DPS 

contains three breeding areas extending 

over a vast area. Similarly, the loss of 

either the Southern or Bering Sea DPS 

would result in a substantial contraction 

of the overall extent of the overall extent 

of the range. The Bering Sea DPS 

contains three breeding areas, and the 

southern DPS contains two breeding 

areas. Both DPSs cover vast areas. 

None of the three segments under 

consideration for designation as DPSs 

could be considered to be the sole 

surviving naturally occurring unit of the 

taxon. All three segments are naturally 

occurring and the species is thought to 

inhabit its entire historic range. 

The southern segment was 

distinguished from the other 2 potential 

DPSs primarily on the basis of its 

genetic composition. The genetic 

markers used for these studies are 

typically assumed to be selectively 

neutral, so the results do not indicate 

whether there is genetic variation 

between the populations that could be 

ecologically or evolutionarily 

significant. 

In sum, the Southern, Okhotsk, and 

Bering Sea population segments are 

discrete because they are markedly 

separated from other populations of the 

same taxon as a consequence of 

physical, physiological, ecological, and 

behavioral factors. They are significant 

because the loss of any of the three DPSs 

would result in a significant gap in the 

range of the taxon and they differ 

markedly from each other in genetic 

characteristics, particularly the 

Southern population. Further, the 

southern DPS exists in an ecological 

setting that is unusual or unique for the 

taxon. We are therefore proposing 

designation of these units as the 

Southern, Okhotsk, and Bering DPSs of 

the spotted seal (Figure 1). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
53688 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP20OC09.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53689 

Figure 1. Eight spotted seal breeding 

concentrations are currently recognized: 

two in the Southern Distinct Population 

segment (DPS), three in the Okhotsk 

DPS, and three in the Bering DPS. The 

dotted green lines are drawn along 43° 

N latitude and 157° E longitude, which 

were considered to be the boundaries 

between the southern and Okhotsk DPSs 

and the Okhotsk and Bering DPSs, 

respectively. 

Spotted Seal Status 

No accurate range-wide abundance 

estimates exist for spotted seals. Several 

factors make it difficult to accurately 

assess spotted seals’ abundance and 

trends. The remoteness and dynamic 

nature of their sea ice habitat along with 

their broad distribution and seasonal 

movements make surveying spotted 

seals expensive, highly unpredictable, 

and logistically challenging. 

Additionally, the species’ range crosses 

political boundaries and there has been 

limited international cooperation to 

conduct range-wide surveys. Details of 

survey methods and data are often 

limited or have not been published, 

making it difficult to judge the 

reliability of the reported numbers. 

Logistical challenges also make it 

difficult to collect the necessary 

behavioral data to make proper 

refinements to seal counts. Survey data 

were often inappropriately extrapolated 

to the entire survey area based on seal 

densities and ice concentration 

estimates without behavioral research to 

determine factors affecting habitat 

selection. For example, no suitable 

behavioral data have been available to 

correct for the proportion of seals in the 

water at the time of surveys. Spotted 

seal haul-out behavior likely varies 

based on many factors such as time of 

year and time of day, daily weather 

conditions, age and sex. 

With these limitations in mind, the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available indicate that the population 

size of spotted seals in the Yellow Sea 

(Liaodong Bay) increased from about 

7,100 in 1930 to a maximum of 8,137 in 

1940. The population then declined 

over the next four decades to a 

minimum of 2,269 in 1979, before 

increasing again to about 4,500 in 1990, 

Despite these conservation efforts by the 

Chinese and South Korean governments, 

the Liaodong Bay population continued 

to decline to around 800 individuals by 

2007, which is the current estimate for 

this population. 

The Sea of Japan supports two 

breeding areas for spotted seals: the 

Tatar Strait and Peter the Great Bay. A 

1970 survey reported an estimate of 

8,000–11,000 spotted seals in the Tatar 

Strait. No other estimates were found for 

this area. Historic harvest records 

suggest that there were probably several 

thousand spotted seals in Peter the 

Great Bay at the end of the 19th century. 

Abundance likely decreased 

considerably until the 1930s as the 

human population and hunting 

increased in this region. Shipboard 

surveys conducted in 1968 placed the 

spotted seal population at roughly 

several hundred individuals. Recent, 

year-round studies have placed the most 

current estimate at about 2,500 spotted 

seals that inhabit Peter the Great Bay in 

the spring, producing about 300 pups 

annually, and now reproducing on 

shore rather than on ice. 

The Sea of Okhotsk population was 

estimated at 130,000 spotted seals based 

on aerial surveys during 1969–1970, and 

was reported to have stabilized at very 

low levels after years of intensive 

commercial harvests occurring from the 

1930s until 1969. A 2000 report on 

abundance estimates the population 

ranging in size between 67,000 and 

268,000 animals, and stated that the 

multi-year average for this period was 

180,000–240,000 seals. That report also 

suggested that the highest estimates in 

the mid to late 1970s (250,000–270,000) 

were closer to the true abundance level 

because survey coverage was more 

complete during that time. In 

consideration of these reported 

abundance estimates, we believe the 

current population of spotted seals in 

the Okhotsk DPS is, conservatively, in 

excess of 100,000 individuals. 

Despite repeated attempts to survey 

the Bering Sea pack ice over the past 

three decades, there are no current 

reliable abundance estimates for spotted 

seals in the Bering Sea. A 1969 aerial 

survey reported an estimate of 135,000 

spotted seals in the Bering Sea, and 

suggested that spotted seal numbers had 

remained stable since 1964. Extensive 

surveys of the Bering Sea ice field in 

1987 produced a minimum estimate of 

100,000 spotted seals. The National 

Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) 

conducted aerial surveys of the Bering 

Sea in 2007. Those data are currently 

being analyzed to update the current 

estimates of abundance for the central 

and eastern Bering Sea. The current 

estimate of abundance in the areas 

surveyed within the central and eastern 

Bering Sea is 101,568 spotted seals. 

Extinction Risk Assessment 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the 

listing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set 

forth procedures for listing species. We 

must determine, through the regulatory 

process, if a species is endangered or 

threatened because of any one or a 

combination of the following factors: (1) 

the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (3) disease or 

predation; (4) inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other 

natural or human-made factors affecting 

its continued existence. These factors 

are discussed below with each DPS 

discussed sequentially under each 

factor. As mentioned above, because 

there is little or no information to 

support a quantitative assessment of the 

primary threats to spotted seals, our risk 

assessment was primarily qualitative 

and based upon expert opinion of the 

BRT members. 

Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range 

The main concern about the 

conservation status of spotted seals 

stems from the likelihood that their sea 

ice habitat has been modified by the 

warming climate and, more so, that the 

scientific consensus projections are for 

continued and perhaps accelerated 

warming and sea ice decline in the 

foreseeable future. A second major 

concern, related by the common driver 

of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, is 

the modification of habitat by ocean 

acidification, which may alter prey 

populations and other important aspects 

of the marine ecosystem. A reliable 

assessment of the future conservation 

status of each spotted seal DPS requires 

a focus on projections of specific 

regional conditions, especially sea ice. 

Regional sea ice thickness is difficult 

to quantify with current sensing 

methods, though there is evidence for 

thinning ice in the Northern 

Hemisphere. Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean 

declined during the past several 

decades, from both thinning of 

undeformed ice and loss of thick ridged 

ice. In contrast to the Arctic Ocean, 

where sea ice is present year-round, the 

ice in the sub-Arctic seas of the spotted 

seal breeding range is seasonal in 

nature. There are no reliable time series 

of ice thickness for the spotted seal 

range in the Bering Sea and Sea of 

Okhotsk. The part of the thinning 

process in the Arctic that has been due 

to loss of multi-year ice is not a concern 

for these sub-Arctic seas that form only 

annual ice. Shorter ice-forming seasons 

in the future may produce thinner ice in 

situ than in the past, but a broad range 

of floe thicknesses would still be 

expected due to rafting and ridging 

processes. 

Despite the recent dramatic 

reductions in Arctic Ocean multi-year 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
53690 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ice extent during summer, the seasonal 

ice in the Bering Sea is expected to 

continue forming annually during the 

winter for the foreseeable future. 

Although this projection is based on the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available, we recognize that 

it is fraught with uncertainty. We expect 

that the sea ice regime there will 

continue to be subject to large 

interannual variations in extent and 

seasonal duration, as it has throughout 

recorded history. There will likely be 

more frequent years in which ice 

coverage is reduced, resulting in a 

decline in the long-term average ice 

extent, but Bering Sea spotted seals will 

likely continue to encounter sufficient 

ice to support stable population growth 

rates for the foreseeable future. Much of 

the sea ice in the eastern and northern 

Bering Sea and the Chukchi Sea during 

spring is very densely compacted and 

heavily ridged, such that spotted seals 

are not found there in significant 

numbers during the breeding season. A 

decline in ice extent and thickness 

could conceivably result in new 

breeding habitat in such areas in the 

future, perhaps mitigating losses of 

previously-used habitat. Even if sea ice 

were to vanish completely from the 

Bering Sea, this population of spotted 

seals may adjust by relocating their 

breeding grounds to follow the 

northward shift of the annual ice front 

into the Chukchi Sea. 

For the Sea of Okhotsk (Okhotsk 

DPS), and the Sea of Japan and Yellow 

Sea (Southern DPS), current global 

climate models for sea ice do not 

perform satisfactorily due to model 

deficiencies and the small size of the 

region compared to the spatial 

resolution of the climate models 

(Boveng et al., 2009). As a result, 

inferences about future ice conditions in 

these areas were drawn indirectly from 

projections of air or sea surface 

temperatures, and thus contain greater 

uncertainty than the projections for the 

Bering Sea. 

In the Southern DPS, ice thickness in 

the BoHai Sea and Peter the Great Bay 

is likely to depend more on the 

thickness of in situ formation because 

smaller wind fetches and shorter 

durations of ice cover would be 

expected to cause less ridging and 

rafting than in the Bering Sea and Sea 

of Okhotsk. Thus, a decline in ice 

thickness may be of consequence to 

spotted seals in the Southern DPS, but 

is not likely to be a significant concern 

for the Okhotsk or Bering DPSs. 

We believe the loss of sea ice habitat 

is a significant factor with respect to the 

southern DPS of the spotted seal, even 

considering they have shown the ability 

to adapt to terrestrial sites. We do not 

find this factor to be significant in terms 

of the Okhotsk or Bering DPSs. 

Ocean acidification, a result of 

increased carbon dioxide in the 

atmosphere, may impact spotted seal 

survival and recruitment through 

disruption of trophic regimes that are 

dependent on calcifying organisms. The 

nature and timing of such impacts are 

extremely uncertain. Because of spotted 

seals’ apparent dietary flexibility, and 

acknowledging our present inability to 

predict the extent and consequences of 

acidification, we do not believe that this 

threat will cause any of the DPSs to 

become in danger of extinction within 

the foreseeable future. 

Changes in spotted seal prey, 

anticipated in response to ocean 

warming and loss of sea ice and, 

potentially, ocean acidification, have 

the potential for negative impacts, but 

the possibilities are complex. Some 

changes already documented in the 

Bering Sea and the North Atlantic 

Ocean are of a nature that could be 

beneficial to spotted seals. For example, 

several fish species, including walleye 

pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), a 

common spotted seal prey, have shown 

northward distribution shifts and 

increased recruitment in response to 

warming, at least initially. These 

ecosystem responses may have very 

long lags as they propagate through 

trophic webs. Apparent flexibility in 

spotted seal foraging locations and 

habits may make these threats a lower 

risk than the more direct impacts from 

changes in sea ice. 

Over-utilization for commercial, 

subsistence, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes 

Recreational, scientific, and 

educational utilization of spotted seals 

is currently at low levels and is not 

projected to increase to significant 

threat levels in the foreseeable future for 

any of the DPSs. Commercial harvests 

by Soviet sealers were at moderate 

levels from the mid–1950s to the early 

1990s, typically not exceeding 10,000 or 

15,000 at the most, annually. Russia has 

established harvest quotas up to 14,800 

for spotted seals in recent years, though 

the 2008 quota was 6,200 and no quota 

was listed for 2009. However, the actual 

harvest has likely been less than a 

couple thousand individuals per year 

because it is not currently, and not 

likely to become, economically viable 

due to lack of a significant market for 

skins or other parts. Subsistence harvest 

levels have been moderate historically 

in both the Bering and Okhotsk DPS, 

and are not anticipated to increase 

significantly. Therefore this factor was 

rated low for all three DPSs. 

Diseases, parasites, and predation 

A variety of pathogens (or antibodies), 

diseases, helminths, cestodes, and 

nematodes, have been found in spotted 

seals. The prevalence of these agents is 

not unusual among seals, but the 

population-level impact is unknown. 

There has been speculation about 

increased risk of outbreaks of novel 

pathogens or parasites in marine 

systems as climate-related shifts in 

species distributions lead to new modes 

of transmission. However, no examples 

directly relating climate change to 

increased severity or prevalence of 

disease have been documented. Some 

types of diseases may decrease in 

severity or prevalence with increasing 

temperature. Therefore, it is not 

currently possible to predict the 

consequences of climate warming on 

disease or pathogen biodiversity in 

general or on spotted seal viability in 

particular. 

There is little or no direct evidence of 

significant predation on spotted seals 

and they are not thought to be a primary 

prey of any predators. Polar bears and 

killer whales may be the most likely 

opportunistic predators in the current 

sea ice regime, but walruses could pose 

a potentially greater risk if reduced sea 

ice conditions force this ice-associated 

species into closer proximity with 

spotted seals in the future. Also, 

predation risk could increase if loss of 

sea ice requires spotted seals to spend 

more time in the water or more time on 

shore, but predator distributions and 

behavior patterns may also be subject to 

climate-related changes, and the net 

impact to spotted seals cannot be 

predicted. This factor was rated low for 

all three DPSs. 

Inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms 

There is little evidence that 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms currently poses a 

significant threat to any of the spotted 

seal DPSs. In other words, while there 

are no regulatory mechanisms that 

effectively address reductions in sea ice 

habitat or ocean acidification, we do not 

expect this shortcoming to result in 

population-level impacts to any of the 

DPSs for the foreseeable future. Indeed, 

our analysis of potential threats does not 

assume the existence, now or in the 

foreseeable future, of any regulatory 

mechanism that would mitigate the 

effects of each threat. 

Inadequacy or lack of stringency of 

mechanisms to regulate oil and gas 

activities in the Yellow Sea and Sea of 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53691 

Okhotsk could contribute to the 

cumulative risk faced by the Southern 

and Okhotsk DPSs. However, large oil 

spill events are infrequent, and the 

ability to respond to them depends on 

a variety of factors, including timing, 

location and weather. In light of the 

infrequency of those events and the 

absence of a declining population trend 

despite existing oil and gas activities, 

we believe such activities will not place 

or contribute to placing the spotted seal 

in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future in any of the three 

DPSs. Therefore this factor was rated 

low for all three DPSs. 

Other natural or human factors affecting 

the species’ continued existence 

Spotted Seals may be adversely 

affected by exposure to certain 

pollutants. Pollutants such as 

organochlorine compounds and heavy 

metals have been found in high 

concentrations in some Arctic. Butyltin 

(BT) compounds are used as antifouling 

agents in ship bottom paints. They are 

retained in all tissues, though largely in 

the liver rather than the blubber where 

PCBs and DDT accumulate. BTs have 

been found in spotted seals and some 

studies suggest marine mammals may 

have difficulty metabolizing these 

compounds. Research has also found 

persistent organochlorine pollutants 

(POPs), including flame retardant 

compounds like PBDEs (polybrominated 

diphenyl ethers); as well as DDTs 

(dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethanes), 

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and 

PFCs in spotted seals. 

We do not believe organochlorine 

levels are affecting ice seal populations 

at this time. We have no data or model 

predictions of levels expected in the 

foreseeable future. However, current 

levels should be used as a baseline for 

future research as concentrations in 

surrounding Arctic regions continue to 

rise. Climate change has the potential to 

increase the transport of pollutants from 

lower latitudes to the Arctic through 

changes in ocean current patterns, 

highlighting the importance of 

continuing to monitor spotted seal 

contaminant levels. 

As previously discussed, oil and gas 

activity has the potential for adverse 

impacts to spotted seals. Currently, 

there are no active offshore oil and gas 

developments in the U.S. Bering or 

Chukchi Seas. Therefore, the current 

risk for spotted seals to be impacted by 

an oil spill in U.S. waters is very low. 

As far as is known, spotted seals have 

not been affected by oil spilled as a 

result of industrial activities even 

though such spills have occurred in 

spotted seal habitat. Oil and gas 

development in the Sea of Okhotsk 

resulted in an oil spill in 1999, which 

released about 3.5 tons of oil. Also, in 

December 2007 approximately 2.8 

million gallons (10,500 tons) of crude 

oil spilled into the Yellow Sea offshore 

of South Korea’s Taean Peninsula from 

a tanker. The size of the oil spill was 

about one-fourth that of the Exxon 

Valdez spill in 1989, and was the largest 

in Korean history. It is unknown how 

many seals may have been affected by 

this spill. Incidences of oil spills are 

expected to increase with the on-going 

increase in oil and natural gas 

exploration/development activities in 

the Bohai and Yellow Seas. 

Accompanying growth in tanker and 

shipping traffic could further add to the 

oil spill potential. According to experts 

in China, the threat of future oil spills 

remains high. 

Though the probability of an oil spill 

affecting a significant portion of the 

spotted seal population of any DPS in 

the foreseeable future is low, the 

potential impacts from such a spill 

could be significant, particularly if 

subsequent clean-up efforts were 

ineffective. The potential impacts would 

be greatest when spotted seals are 

relatively aggregated. For example, 

spotted seals in the Okhotsk Sea move 

to coastal haul-out sites after the sea ice 

melts in July. One survey reported 

10,000 individuals along the Sakhalin 

Island coast, 30,000 individuals along 

the continental coast of Sea of Okhotsk, 

and 20,000 individuals on the western 

Kamchatka coast. Therefore, an oil spill 

along these coasts could have significant 

effects on local spotted seal populations. 

Such an event in the Bohai Sea could be 

particularly devastating to the Southern 

DPS of spotted seals. 

It is important to evaluate the effects 

of anthropogenic perturbations, such as 

oil spills, in the context of historical 

data. Without historical data on 

distribution and abundance, it is not 

possible to measure the impacts of an 

oil spill on spotted seals. Population 

monitoring studies need to be 

implemented in areas where significant 

industrial activities are likely to occur, 

so that it will be possible to compare 

future impacts with historical patterns 

and thus determine the magnitude of 

potential effects. 

In summary, the threats to spotted 

seals from oil and gas activities are 

greatest where these activities converge 

with coastal aggregations of the species. 

In particular, the spotted seals in the 

Bohai Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk in the 

Okhotsk DPS are most vulnerable to oil 

and gas activities, primarily due to 

potential oil spill impacts. Given the 

very low abundance of the Southern 

DPS and the possible consequences of a 

large oil spill to these seals, we 

considered this factor to be significant 

in terms of their status, causing them to 

be at risk of becoming endangered 

within the foreseeable future. However, 

we do not find that oil and gas activities 

within the range of the Okhotsk or 

Bering DPSs are likely to place or 

contribute to placing those spotted seals 

in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future. Therefore this factor 

was rated as high for the southern DPS 

and moderate for the Okhotsk and 

Bering DPSs. 

Conservation Efforts 

When considering the listing of a 

species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA 

requires us to consider efforts by any 

State, foreign nation, or political 

subdivision of a State or foreign nation 

to protect the species. Such efforts 

would include measures by Native 

American tribes and organizations, local 

governments, and private organizations. 

Also, Federal, tribal, state, and foreign 

recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)), and 

Federal consultation requirements (16 

U.S.C. 1536) constitute conservation 

measures. In addition to identifying 

these efforts, under the act and our 

policy implementing this provision (68 

FR 15100; March 28, 2003) we must 

evaluate the certainty of an effort’s 

effectiveness on the basis of whether the 

effort or plan establishes specific 

conservation objectives; identifies the 

necessary steps to reduce threats or 

factors for decline; includes quantifiable 

performance measures for the 

monitoring of compliance and 

effectiveness; incorporates the 

principles of adaptive management; is 

likely to be implemented, and is likely 

to improve the species’ viability at the 

time of the listing determination. 

International Actions and Agreements 

Several conservation efforts have been 

undertaken by foreign nations 

specifically to protect spotted seals. 

These include: (1) Russia has 

established the Far Eastern Marine 

Reserve in Russia’s Peter the Great Bay. 

The islands of the Reserve provide 

protection from human disturbance and 

suitable haul-out sites for spotted seals; 

(2) China’s Liaoning provincial 

government has banned the hunting of 

spotted seals, and established two 

national protected areas for the 

protection of spotted seals in the 

Liaodong Bay area, including the Dalian 

National Spotted Seal Nature Reserve. 

However, in 2006, the Dalian Nature 

Reserve’s boundaries were adjusted to 

accommodate industrial development; 

(3) Spotted seals are listed in the Second 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
53692 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Category (II) of the ‘‘State Key Protected 

Wildlife List’’ in China and listed as 

Vulnerable (V) in the ‘‘China Red Data 

Book of Endangered Animals’’; (4) 

Spotted seals are categorized as 

Critically Endangered in the Yellow Sea, 

but this may be a misinterpretation; (5) 

The spotted seal is designated a 

vulnerable species under the Wildlife 

Conservation Act of China. However, as 

of 2004, no conservation action, public 

awareness or education programs have 

been carried out for the species in this 

region; and (6) In 2000, spotted seals 

were afforded protected status under the 

Wildlife Conservation Act of South 

Korea. Despite this protection, the 

Liaodong Gulf population, shared 

between China and Korea, continues to 

decline. 

The Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a treaty 

aimed at protecting species at risk from 

international trade. CITES regulates 

international trade in animals and 

plants by listing species in one of its 

three appendices. Spotted seals are not 

listed under CITES. 

The International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List 

identifies and documents those species 

most in need of conservation attention 

if global extinction rates are to be 

reduced, and is widely recognized as 

the most comprehensive, apolitical, 

global approach for evaluating the 

conservation status of plant and animal 

species. In order to produce Red Lists of 

threatened species worldwide, the IUCN 

Species Survival Commission draws on 

a network of scientists and partner 

organizations, which use a scientifically 

rigorous approach to determine species’ 

risks of extinction. Because current 

abundance and population trends are 

unknown, the spotted seal is currently 

classified as ‘‘Data Deficient’’ on the 

IUCN Red List. The Red List assessment 

also suggests that reductions of the 

spotted seal population could exceed 

30% in the next 30 years due to 

predicted reductions in its sea ice 

habitat, which would then meet the 

IUCN criterion for ‘‘Vulnerable’’. 

There are no known regulatory 

mechanisms that effectively address 

reductions in sea ice habitat at this time. 

The primary international regulatory 

mechanisms addressing greenhouse gas 

emissions and global warming are the 

United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change and the Kyoto 

Protocol. However, the Kyoto Protocol’s 

first commitment period only sets 

targets for action through 2012. There is 

no regulatory mechanism governing 

greenhouse gas emissions in the years 

beyond 2012. The United States, 

although a signatory to the Kyoto 

Protocol, has not ratified it; therefore, 

the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on 

the United States. 

Domestic Regulatory Mechanisms 

Several laws exist that directly or 

indirectly promote the conservation and 

protection of spotted seals. These 

include the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972, the National Environmental 

Policy Act, the Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act, the Coastal Zone 

Management Act, and the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries 

Act. 

There are currently no legal 

mechanisms regulating greenhouse 

gases in the United States. Greenhouse 

gas emissions have not been effectively 

regulated under the United State’s Clean 

Air Act (CAA). In 2003, the EPA 

rejected a petition urging it to regulate 

greenhouse gas emissions from 

automobiles under the CAA. In 2007, 

the Supreme Court overturned the 

EPA’s refusal to regulate these 

emissions and remanded the matter to 

the agency for further consideration 

(Mass. v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)). On 

April 17, 2009, the EPA issued a 

proposed finding that greenhouse gases 

contribute to air pollution that may 

endanger public health and welfare. The 

proposed finding identified six 

greenhouse gases that pose a potential 

threat. However, the proposed finding 

does not include any proposed 

regulations. Before taking any steps to 

reduce greenhouse gases under the 

CAA, the EPA must conduct an 

appropriate process and consider public 

comment on the proposed finding. 

At this time, NMFS is not aware of 

any formalized conservation efforts for 

spotted seals that have yet to be 

implemented, or which have recently 

been implemented, but have yet to show 

their effectiveness in removing threats 

to the species. NMFS co-manages 

spotted seals with the Ice Seal 

Committee (ISC). The ISC is an Alaska 

Native Organization dedicated to 

conserving seal populations, habitat, 

and hunting in order to help preserve 

native cultures and traditions. The ISC 

co-manages ice seals with NMFS by 

monitoring subsistence harvest and 

cooperating on needed research and 

education programs pertaining to ice 

seals. NMFS’s National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory is engaged in an active 

research program for spotted seals. The 

information from new research will be 

used to enhance our understanding of 

the risk factors affecting spotted seals, 

thereby improving our ability to develop 

effective management measures for the 

species. 

Based on our analysis of both 

international and domestic conservation 

efforts there is no certainty that these 

efforts will be effective in altering the 

status of any of the DPSs of spotted 

seals. Therefore, this analysis does not 

affect our determination of the 

extinction risk or ESA listing status of 

these DPSs. 

Based on the Extinction Risk 

Assessment and consideration of section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing 

regulations, we find that the Southern 

DPS is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

and should be listed as a threatened 

species ,and the Bering and Okhotsk 

DPSs are not in danger of extinction nor 

of becoming endangered within the 

foreseeable future, and do not qualify 

for listing. 

Significant Portion of Their Range 

The ESA defines ‘‘endangered’’ and 

‘‘threatened’’ in terms of both the 

entirety of the species (as defined under 

ESA to include DPSs) and relative to a 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’. That 

is, if a species is found to be threatened 

or endangered within a significant 

portion of its range, the entire species 

may be listed at that level. Here we 

consider whether the spotted seal DPSs, 

treated as ‘‘species’’ for these purposes, 

should be listed as threatened or 

endangered based on their condition 

throughout a significant portion of their 

range. Having already determined from 

our extinction risk assessment and PECE 

policy analysis that the Southern DPS 

qualifies as a threatened species and the 

Bering and Okhotsk DPSs do not qualify 

for listing, we considered whether any 

subdivision of these DPS’s range could 

be identified. If we found such a 

subdivision, we then considered the 

status of the spotted seals within that 

subdivision relative to the wider DPS. If 

we found that those seals in the 

subdivision may qualify as threatened 

or endangered, the subdivision was then 

assessed as to whether it could 

constitute a significant portion of the 

range of the DPS. 

As discussed above, there are few data 

to comprehensively identify the actual 

range of the spotted seal. The species is 

known to travel over 1,000 km in 

foraging trips, indicating there may be 

considerable overlap in the range of the 

three DPSs. For purposes of this 

analysis, we considered a more 

functional range as suggested by the 

status review and based on breeding 

populations. We considered 

subdivisions within the range of each 

DPS based on any known biological or 

physical basis using information 

presented in the status review. This 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53693 

indicated that, while certain 

geographical features could be 

identified as having significance in 

defining range, these features were 

pertinent to the identification of the 

three DPSs and were not of sufficient 

resolution to define any subdivision 

within any of the DPSs. The status 

review does, however, identify eight 

recognized breeding areas for the 

spotted seals. Each of these areas has 

some geographical distinction and many 

had significant biological distinction in 

terms of genetic information or 

behavior. Generally, spotted seals 

display a high degree of fidelity to 

breeding sites, making these areas a 

reasonable subdivision of the range of 

each DPS for this analysis. 

We next considered whether the 

population of spotted seals within each 

of these breeding areas might be 

threatened or endangered. The Bering 

DPS contains the Bering Sea, Gulf of 

Anadyr, and Karaginsky Bay breeding 

areas. The best scientific and 

commercial information available 

suggests the Bering DPS exceeds 

100,000. No trend data are available. 

The total Bering Sea breeding area is 

reported to have a spotted seal 

population of approximately 100,000. 

We have no abundance information for 

the Gulf of Anadyr or Karaginsky Bay 

breeding areas. While we lack specific 

information on each of these 

subdivisions, the status review 

concluded that the Bering DPS has 

persisted at a large abundance level over 

the past decades with no extreme 

fluctuations. The consequences of the 

potential threats to the Bering Sea 

population, including from climate 

change, have been addressed in 

previous sections of this proposed rule, 

and we have no information that would 

lead to a different conclusion for any of 

the specific subdivisions of the Bering 

DPS. Therefore, the spotted seal is not 

considered to be threatened or 

endangered within any of the Bering 

DPS subdivisions. Accordingly, even if 

we were to assume that each 

subdivision constituted a significant 

portion of the range, the Bering DPS of 

the spotted seal would not be in danger 

of extinction throughout a significant 

portion of its range. 

The Okhotsk DPS contains the 

breeding areas Tatar Strait, Southwest 

Sea of Okhotsk and the Northeast Sea of 

Okhotsk. The best scientific and 

commercial information available 

indicates that there are approximately 

100,000 spotted seals in this DPS. The 

Tatar Strait population was estimated at 

8,000–11,000 in 1968–1969, and no 

other estimates were found. Like the 

Bering DPS, there are large gaps in our 

information for the Okhotsk DPS. The 

status review summarized the DPS as 

numbering around 100,000 individuals; 

thus demographic and genetic risks 

should not be a concern. This DPS is at 

some risk due to climate change and 

development (other natural or human 

factors affecting the species’ continued 

existence), and those risks may exceed 

those of the Bering DPS. Nonetheless, 

we have concluded the Okhotsk DPS is 

not currently in danger of extinction nor 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. In the absence of current 

information on the abundance levels or 

threats that may occur within each of 

the subdivisions of this DPS, we have 

no basis to conclude that the spotted 

seal may be considered threatened or 

endangered in any of those specific 

subdivisions. Accordingly, there is no 

information to suggest that this DPS is 

in danger of extinction throughout a 

significant portion of its range. 

We have identified the southern DPS 

to include breeding areas in Liaodong 

Bay and Peter the Great Bay. Both of 

these subdivisions are subject to high 

levels of shipping and have actual or 

potential value for oil production 

presenting the potential for oil spills. 

However there have been no significant 

adverse effects observed due to oil and 

gas development to date, and it is 

difficult to predict future consequences 

because of a lack of specific information 

on where and how these activities 

would occur. We would rate these 

factors as low for both subdivisions. 

Historic abundance in Peter the Great 

Bay is estimated at several thousand 

spotted seals, while the most current 

abundance figures are about 2,500, 

producing about 300 pups annually. 

The majority of these seals are now 

reproducing on shore rather than on ice. 

Because spotted seals in Peter the Great 

Bay do not appear to be significantly 

reduced and are breeding successfully 

on land (albeit at some increased risk 

due to the use of these terrestrial sites), 

we do not find this subdivision would 

warrant listing as threatened or 

endangered. Consideration of the other 

factors described in the Extinction Risk 

Analysis did not indicate the spotted 

seal population of the Peter the Great 

subdivision is not in danger of 

extinction nor of becoming endangered 

within the foreseeable future, and 

would not qualify for listing. 

The most recent abundance estimate 

for the Liaodong Bay population of 

spotted seals is 800, which is 

significantly lower that the historic 

estimates (c. 1940) of over 8,000. The 

decline has been attributed to over 

hunting and habitat destruction (Woo 

and Yoo, 2004), and spotted seal 

mortalities continue in this subdivision 

due to fisheries by-catch, direct killing 

by commercial fisheries, and poaching. 

It is expected that seasonal ice will 

rarely form in this area by about the 

middle of the 21st century. While 

spotted seals appear to have some 

capability to accomplish breeding and 

molting on shore, pinnipeds are 

generally not well protected from 

predation when they are constrained by 

the necessity of maintaining a motherpup bond. Also, suitable space for 

spotted seals to breed on land is likely 

limited to offshore rocks and small 

islands without human habitation, 

which may be relatively scarce here. It 

is clear that the Liaodong Bay spotted 

seals are already significantly reduced 

from historical levels, and if reduced 

further they may begin to be at 

significant risk from small-population 

threats such as demographic 

stochasticity and genetic problems. 

Based on these considerations, we find 

the Liaodong Bay spotted seals to be in 

danger of becoming extinct within the 

foreseeable future, and to be a 

threatened species. Because this finding 

is consistent with our listing 

recommendation for the southern DPS, 

no further analysis is necessary 

regarding whether Liaodong Bay 

constitutes a significant portion of this 

DPS range. 

In summary, an analysis of the 

significant portions of the range of the 

identified DPSs of spotted seals does not 

lead to any changes from our listing 

recommendations. 

Listing Determinations 

We have reviewed the status of the 

spotted seal, considering the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. We have reviewed threats and 

other factors to the three DPSs, and 

given consideration to conservation 

efforts and special designations for 

spotted seals by states and foreign 

nations. In consideration of all of the 

threats and potential threats identified 

above, the assessment of the risks posed 

by those threats, the possible 

cumulative impacts, and the uncertainty 

associated with all of these, we draw the 

following conclusions: 

Okhotsk DPS: (1) Although accurate 

abundance and trend data are not 

available for this DPS, the best scientific 

and commercial data available indicates 

it contains more than 100,000 

individuals with no strong evidence of 

a declining trend; (2) It is likely that 

reductions will occur in both the timing 

and extent of sea ice for this DPS; 

however, these changes cannot be 

accurately modeled and the 

consequences of diminished sea ice to 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
53694 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the seals in these areas is speculative. 

For example, spotted seals have 

demonstrated an ability to adapt to 

terrestrial sites, and sea ice in the Sea 

of Okhotsk often extends past 

productive shelf waters. Therefore, it is 

possible that any diminished extent of 

ice here will place the ice edge over 

more productive feeding habitat for the 

seals. Consequently, despite the 

expectation of a gradual decline, the 

Okhotsk DPS is not presently in danger 

of extinction nor likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We 

conclude that listing them as threatened 

or endangered under the ESA is not 

warranted. 

Bering DPS: (1) Although accurate 

abundance and trend data are not 

available for these DPSs, the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

indicates that each DPS contains more 

than 100,000 individuals with no strong 

evidence of a declining trend; (2) It is 

likely that reductions will occur in both 

the timing and extent of sea ice in the 

range of these DPSs; however, these 

changes cannot be accurately modeled 

and the consequences of diminished sea 

ice to the seals in these areas is 

speculative. While the effects of climate 

change may decrease suitable habitat for 

spotted seals in the south, such losses 

may be offset, in part, by increases in 

suitable habitat in the north. Even if sea 

ice were to vanish completely from the 

Bering Sea, this population of spotted 

seals may adjust by relocating their 

breeding grounds to follow the 

northward shift of the annual ice front 

into the Chukchi Sea. Therefore, the 

Bering DPS is not presently in danger of 

extinction nor likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We 

conclude that listing them as threatened 

or endangered under the ESA is not 

warranted. 

Southern DPS: (1) Abundance 

estimates indicate the Liaodong Bay 

spotted seals have been significantly 

reduced from historic numbers, while 

the Peter The Great population appears 

to be near historic numbers and stable; 

(2) projected warming by mid-century 

indicates reliable ice formation will 

cease to occur in this region; (3) there 

already is significant use of terrestrial 

habitat for breeding and whelping by 

spotted seals in this DPS; (4) overall, the 

southern DPS has been significantly 

reduced in number and now exists at 

abundance levels where additional loss 

would threaten this DPS through ‘‘small 

population’’ or demographic 

stochasticity effects; (5) the continued 

viability of using terrestrial sites is 

unknown, but may be limited in area or 

predispose spotted seals to predation 

and other natural and anthropogenic 

effects. Therefore, the Southern DPS of 

spotted seals is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range and we 

propose to list this DPS as threatened 

under the ESA. 

Prohibitions and Protective Measures 

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain 

activities that directly or indirectly 

affect endangered species. These 

prohibitions apply to all individuals, 

organizations and agencies subject to 

U.S. jurisdiction. Section 4(d) of the 

ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) to implement regulations ‘‘to 

provide for the conservation of 

[threatened] species,’’ that may include 

extending any or all of the prohibitions 

of section 9 to threatened species. 

Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits 

violations of protective regulations for 

threatened species implemented under 

section 4(d). We are proposing 

protective regulations pursuant to 

section 4(d) for the southern DPS to 

include all of the prohibitions in 

Section 9(a)(1). Sections 7(a)(2) and (4) 

of the ESA require Federal agencies to 

consult with us to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or conduct are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or a species 

proposed for listing, or to adversely 

modify critical habitat or proposed 

critical habitat. If a federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

must enter into consultation with us. 

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

ESA provide us with authority to grant 

exceptions to the ESA’s Section 9 ‘‘take’’ 

prohibitions. Section 10(a)(1)(A) 

scientific research and enhancement 

permits may be issued to entities 

(Federal and non-Federal) for scientific 

purposes or to enhance the propagation 

or survival of a listed species. The type 

of activities potentially requiring a 

section 10(a)(1)(A) research/ 

enhancement permit include scientific 

research that targets spotted seals. 

Our Policies on Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife 

On July 1, 1994, we and FWS 

published a series of policies regarding 

listings under the ESA, including a 

policy for peer review of scientific data 

(59 FR 34270) and a policy to identify, 

to the maximum extent possible, those 

activities that would or would not 

constitute a violation of section 9 of the 

ESA (59 FR 34272). We must also follow 

the Office of Management and Budget 

Policy for peer review as described 

below. 

Role of Peer Review 

The intent of the peer review policy 

is to ensure that listings are based on the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available. Prior to a final listing, we will 

solicit the expert opinions of three 

qualified specialists, concurrent with 

the public comment period. 

Independent specialists will be selected 

from the academic and scientific 

community, Federal and state agencies, 

and the private sector. 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review establishing minimum peer 

review standards, a transparent process 

for public disclosure of peer review 

planning, and opportunities for public 

participation. The OMB Bulletin, 

implemented under the Information 

Quality Act (Public Law 106–554), is 

intended to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Federal Government’s 

scientific information, and applies to 

influential or highly influential 

scientific information disseminated on 

or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our 

requirements under the OMB Bulletin, 

we are obtaining independent peer 

review of the draft status report, which 

supports this proposal to list three DPSs 

of rockfish in Puget Sound and Georgia 

Basin as threatened or endangered; all 

peer reviewer comments will be 

addressed prior to dissemination of the 

final report and publication of the final 

rule. 

Identification of Those Activities That 

Would Constitute a Violation of Section 

9 of the ESA 

The intent of this policy is to increase 

public awareness of the effect of our 

ESA listing on proposed and ongoing 

activities within the species’ range. We 

will identify, to the extent known at the 

time of the final rule, specific activities 

that will be considered likely to result 

in violation of section 9, as well as 

activities that will not be considered 

likely to result in violation. Because the 

southern DPS occurs outside of the 

jurisdiction of the United States, we are 

presently unaware of any activities that 

could result in violation of section 9 of 

the ESA. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is not to be designated 

within foreign countries or in other 

areas outside of United States 

jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)). Because 

the known distribution of the Southern 

DPS occurs in areas outside the 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53695 

jurisdiction of the United States, no 

critical habitat will be designated as part 

of the proposed listing actions. 

Public Hearings 

50 CFR 424.16(c)(3) requires the 

Secretary to promptly hold at least one 

public hearing if any person requests 

one within 45 days of publication of a 

proposed rule to list a species. Such 

hearings provide the opportunity for 

interested individuals and parties to 

give opinions, exchange information, 

and engage in a constructive dialogue 

concerning this proposed rule. We 

encourage the public’s involvement in 

this matter. If hearings are requested, 

details regarding location(s), date(s), and 

time(s) will be published in a 

forthcoming Federal Register notice. 

Public Comments Solicited 

Relying on the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

exercised our best professional 

judgment in developing this proposal to 

list the southern DPS of spotted seals. 

To ensure that the final action resulting 

from this proposal will be as accurate 

and effective as possible, we are 

soliciting comments and suggestions 

from the public, other governmental 

agencies, the governments of China, 

Japan, and Russia, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. Comments are 

encouraged on this proposal as well as 

on the Status Review (See DATES and 

ADDRESSES). We will review all public 

comments and any additional 

information regarding the status of these 

DPSs and will complete a final 

determination within 1 year of 

publication of this proposed rule, as 

required under the ESA. Final 

promulgation of the regulation(s) will 

consider the comments and any 

additional information we receive, and 

such communications may lead to a 

final regulation that differs from this 

proposal. 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 

829 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded 

that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing 

actions (See also NOAA Administrative 

Order 216–6.). 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, and 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analyses 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act are not applicable to the listing 

process. In addition, this rule is exempt 

from review under Executive Order 

12866. This rule does not contain a 

collection of information requirement 

for the purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take 

into account any federalism impacts of 

regulations under development. It 

includes specific directives for 

consultation in situations where a 

regulation will preempt state law or 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on state and local governments 

(unless required by statute). Neither of 

those circumstances is applicable to this 

rule. 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The longstanding and distinctive 

relationship between the Federal and 

tribal governments is defined by 

treaties, statutes, executive orders, 

judicial decisions, and co-management 

agreements, which differentiate tribal 

governments from the other entities that 

deal with, or are affected by, the Federal 

government. This relationship has given 

rise to a special Federal trust 

responsibility involving the legal 

responsibilities and obligations of the 

United States toward Indian Tribes and 

the application of fiduciary standards of 

due care with respect to Indian lands, 

tribal trust resources, and the exercise of 

tribal rights. E.O. 13175 - Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments - outlines the 

responsibilities of the Federal 

Government in matters affecting tribal 

interests. Section 161 of Public Law 

108–199 (188 Stat. 452), as amended by 

section 518 of Public Law 108–447 (118 

Stat. 3267), directs all Federal agencies 

to consult with Alaska Native 

corporations on the same basis as Indian 

tribes under E.O. 13175. 

We have determined the proposed 

listing actions would not have tribal 

implications nor affect any tribal 

governments or issues. The southern 

DPS does not occur within Alaska, and 

therefore is not hunted by Alaskan 

Natives for traditional use or 

subsistence purposes. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking can be found on our 

website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ 

and is available upon request from the 

NMFS office in Juneau, Alaska (see 

ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Transportation. 

Dated: October 14, 2009. 

James W. Balsiger, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

1. The authority citation of part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, 

§ 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 

§ 223.206(d)(9). 

2. In § 223.102, paragraph (a)(3) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened 

marine and anadromous species. 

(c) * * * 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
53696 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Species1

Where Listed Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Citation(s) for critical habitat desCommon name ignation(s) Scientific 

name 

* * * * * * * 

(3) Southern DPS – Spotted Seal Phoca largha The southern 

DPS includes 

all breeding 

populations of 

spotted seals 

south of 43 

degrees north 

latitude in the 

Pacific Ocean. 

[INSERT FR 

CITATION & DATE 

WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS A 

FINAL RULE] 

NA 

* * * * * * * 

3. In Subpart B of part 223, Add 

§ 223.211 to read as follows: 

§ 223.211 Southern DPS of Spotted Seal. 

Prohibitions. The prohibitions of 

section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of 

the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to 

endangered species shall apply to the 

Southern Distinct Population Segment 

of the Spotted Seal listed in 

§ 223.102(a)(3). 

[FR Doc. E9–25198 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS