Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 90-Day Finding for a Petition to List Georgia Basin Populations of China Rockfish and Tiger Rockfish as Endangered or Threatened, 52928-52929 [2010-21536]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
52928
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 167 / Monday, August 30, 2010 / Notices
subzone status at the Dow Corning
facilities in Carrollton, Elizabethtown
and Shepherdsville, Kentucky (75 FR
31763, 6/3/2010) is being extended to
October 1, 2010 to allow additional time
for the submission of rebuttal
comments. Original submissions shall
be sent to the Board’s Executive
Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones
Board, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20230. An
electronic copy shall be submitted to
ftz@trade.gov.
For further information, contact
Elizabeth Whiteman at
Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202)
482–0473.
instruments are intended to be used,
was being manufactured in the United
States at the time the instruments were
ordered. Reasons: Each foreign
instrument is an electron microscope
and is intended for research or scientific
educational uses requiring an electron
microscope. We know of no electron
microscope, or any other instrument
suited to these purposes, which was
being manufactured in the United States
at the time of order of each instrument.
Dated: August 24, 2010.
Gregory W. Campbell,
Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement
Office, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–21557 Filed 8–29–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
Dated: August 24, 2010.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[FR Doc. 2010–21571 Filed 8–27–10; 8:45 am]
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
BILLING CODE P
[Docket No. 100813341–0341–01]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
RIN 0648–XX56
International Trade Administration
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Emory University, et al., Notice of
Consolidated Decision on Applications
for Duty–Free Entry of Electron
Microscopes
This is a decision consolidated pursuant
to Section 6(c) of the Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Materials
Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–
651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–36; 80
Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related
records can be viewed between 8:30
A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 3720, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th and
Constitution Avenue., NW, Washington,
D.C.
Docket Number: 10–038. Applicant:
Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322.
Instrument: Electron Microscope.
Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan.
Intended Use: See notice at 75 FR
46912, August 4, 2010.
Docket Number: 10–049. Applicant:
Health Research Inc., New York State
Department of Health, Menands, NY
12204–2719. Instrument: Electron
Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd.,
Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 75 FR
46912, August 4, 2010.
Docket Number: 10–051. Applicant:
Regents of the University of California at
San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093–0651.
Instrument: Electron Microscope.
Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech
Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 75
FR 46912, August 4, 2010.
Comments: None received. Decision:
Approved. No instrument of equivalent
scientific value to the foreign
instrument, for such purposes as these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Aug 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Notice of 90–Day Finding
for a Petition to List Georgia Basin
Populations of China Rockfish and
Tiger Rockfish as Endangered or
Threatened
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90–day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We (NMFS) received a
petition to list Georgia Basin
populations of China rockfish (Sebastes
nebulosus) and tiger rockfish (S.
nigrocinctus) as endangered or
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We
determine that the petition does not
present substantial evidence to indicate
that the petitioned action may be
warranted.
SUMMARY:
Requests for copies of this
petition regarding Georgia Basin China
rockfish and tiger rockfish should be
submitted to Chief, Protected Resources
Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd
Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR
97232. The petition and supporting data
are available for public inspection, by
appointment, Monday through Friday,
at this address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region,
(503) 231–2005 or Dwayne Meadows,
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
(301) 713–1401.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4 of the ESA contains
provisions allowing interested persons
to petition the Secretary of the Interior
or the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary) to add a species to or remove
a species from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and to
designate critical habitat. On April 27,
2010, we received a petition from Mr.
Sam Wright of Olympia, WA, to list
Georgia Basin populations of China
rockfish and tiger rockfish. For the
purpose of this petition finding, we
consider the Georgia Basin to include
the inland marine waters of Puget
Sound, the Strait of Georgia (north to
the mouth of the Campbell River in
British Columbia), and the portion of
the Strait of Juan de Fuca east of the
Victoria Sill (see our determination to
list three distinct population segments
of Puget Sound/Georgia Basin distinct
population segments of rockfish, 75 FR
22276 (April 28, 2010)).
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1531–1544) requires that we
determine whether a petition to list,
delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted. In
making this determination, we consider
information submitted with and
referenced in the petition, and all other
information available in our files. To the
maximum extent practicable, this
finding is to be made within 90 days of
the receipt of the petition, and the
finding is to be published promptly in
the Federal Register.
In evaluating a petition, the Secretary
considers whether it (1) describes past
and present numbers and distribution of
the species and any threats faced by the
species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)); (2)
provides information regarding the
status of the species over all or a
significant portion of its range (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)(iii)); and (3) is
accompanied by appropriate supporting
documentation (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)(iv)).
The ESA defines ‘‘species’’ to include
subspecies, or a distinct population
segment of a vertebrate species (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). The petitioner
requested listing of the Georgia Basin
populations of China rockfish and tiger
rockfish. We evaluated whether the
information provided or cited in the
petition met our standard for
‘‘substantial information’’ as defined in
joint ESA implementing regulations
issued by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (50 CFR 424.14(b)). We
also reviewed other information
E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
30AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 167 / Monday, August 30, 2010 / Notices
available to us (currently within our
files).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Previous Petition to list Puget Sound
China Rockfish and Tiger Rockfish
We have received numerous petitions
from Mr. Wright. In 1999, he petitioned
us to list 18 species of Puget Sound
marine fishes. Based on the information
presented in that petition, and available
in our files, we conducted status
reviews on seven of those fishes.
Information on the other eleven fishes
(including China rockfish and tiger
rockfish) was insubstantial and we
therefore did not conduct status reviews
(64 FR 33037; June 21, 1999).
Analysis of Petition
When reviewing a petition to list a
species under the ESA, we consider
information provided in the petition as
well as information available in agency
files. Mr. Wright’s petition provides
information from SCUBA surveys
conducted in the Georgia Basin from
1998 to 2009. The petition points to the
fact that there are few observations of
China rockfish and tiger rockfish in
these surveys. The petition provides no
analysis to explain how these surveys
can be interpreted to indicate either a
low abundance level or a declining
trend in abundance, either of which
might be evidence of risk to the species.
To the contrary, the petitioner
acknowledges that adults of these two
species tend to remain hidden in rocky
habitats, which could make them
difficult for SCUBA divers to observe.
In the absence of any analysis in the
petition, we independently reviewed
the information from these surveys and
concluded they do not provide evidence
of low abundance or a declining trend
in abundance. The surveys are
opportunistic sightings, reported by
recreational or professional divers.
There is no research protocol associated
with these SCUBA reports, and the
identification of individual fish species
cannot be independently verified.
Because the area surveyed and the level
of effort are opportunistic and variable,
because the reports are not collected in
a systematic sampling design, and
because adults of these species tend to
hide in rocky habitats that could make
them difficult to observe, we concluded
that these survey results do not support
inferences about population abundance.
The petition also provides a short
description of the total recreational
catch of these species over a 12–year
period. The description appears under a
heading in the petition entitled ‘‘Low
Abundance Problem,’’ but the petition
provides no explanation of how this
information reveals anything about the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Aug 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
abundance of these two species. In the
absence of an analysis in the petition,
we independently reviewed the
information on recreational catches of
these two species available in our
records. The proportion of these two
species in the recreational rockfish
catch is low, approximately 1 percent
over the 12–year period. Standing alone,
however, this low percentage does not
indicate a low occurrence of these
rockfish species relative to others
because, as noted above, adults of the
petitioned species tend to remain
hidden in rocky habitat and are
therefore less available to anglers. Nor
does this information reveal anything
about the absolute abundance of these
two species. The catch information
therefore does not indicate that
abundance of these species is low
enough to pose a threat to viability.
We agree with the petitioner’s
assertion that China rockfish and tiger
rockfish typically utilize a small home
range and experience low productivity.
However, as the petitioner
acknowledges, a small home range
causes individuals to remain hidden in
rocky habitat, where they may
experience lower mortality, as a result
of less frequent exposure to predators.
Low productivity can be a risk factor in
some instances. However, low
productivity is not an indication of
declining abundance (another risk
factor) since it reflects a life history
trade-off between fecundity and life
span.
Finally, the petitioner fails to
demonstrate how any of these
individual pieces of information could
be integrated into a trend analysis or
some other type of analysis suggesting
the two species are at risk.
The petitioner states ‘‘This would be
an ideal time to conduct a status review
of these two species since most of the
required assessment work has already
been done and there is an existing
Biological Review Team (BRT).’’ While
it is true that NMFS recently completed
an ESA review of five rockfish species
in the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia
(including the formation and use of a
BRT), that is not a basis to conduct
additional reviews under ESA section
4(b)(3)(A). NMFS did not look at
information on China rockfish and tiger
rockfish during its review earlier in the
year, and the BRT was subsequently
disbanded.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the petition, as well
as information readily available to us,
we have determined that the petition
does not present substantial scientific
information indicating the petitioned
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52929
action may be warranted. If new
information becomes available to
suggest that Georgia Basin populations
of China rockfish and tiger rockfish may
warrant listing under the ESA, we will
reconsider conducting a status review.
References
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available upon request (see
ADDRESSES section).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: August 24, 2010.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–21536 Filed 8–27–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
President’s Export Council: Meeting of
the President’s Export Council
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of an open meeting.
AGENCY:
The President’s Export
Council will hold a meeting to discuss
topics related to the National Export
Initiative, and advice from the
President’s Export Council as to how to
promote U.S. exports, jobs, and growth.
DATES: September 16, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.
(EDT).
ADDRESSES: The President’s Export
Council will convene its next meeting
via live webcast on the Internet at
https://whitehouse.gov/live.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.
Marc Chittum, President’s Export
Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: 202–482–1124, e-mail:
Marc.Chittum@trade.gov.
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The President’s Export
Council was first established by
Executive Order on December 20, 1973
to advise the President on matters
relating to U.S. export trade and report
to the President on its activities and on
its recommendations for expanding U.S.
exports. The President’s Export Council
was renewed most recently by Executive
Order 13511 of September 29, 2009, for
the two-year period ending September
30, 2011.
Public Submissions: The public is
invited to submit written statements to
the President’s Export Council by C.O.B.
E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
30AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52928-52929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21536]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 100813341-0341-01]
RIN 0648-XX56
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 90-Day
Finding for a Petition to List Georgia Basin Populations of China
Rockfish and Tiger Rockfish as Endangered or Threatened
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (NMFS) received a petition to list Georgia Basin
populations of China rockfish (Sebastes nebulosus) and tiger rockfish
(S. nigrocinctus) as endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We determine that the petition does not
present substantial evidence to indicate that the petitioned action may
be warranted.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of this petition regarding Georgia Basin
China rockfish and tiger rockfish should be submitted to Chief,
Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite
1100, Portland, OR 97232. The petition and supporting data are
available for public inspection, by appointment, Monday through Friday,
at this address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region,
(503) 231-2005 or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
(301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4 of the ESA contains provisions allowing interested
persons to petition the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) to add a species to or remove a species from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and to designate critical
habitat. On April 27, 2010, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright
of Olympia, WA, to list Georgia Basin populations of China rockfish and
tiger rockfish. For the purpose of this petition finding, we consider
the Georgia Basin to include the inland marine waters of Puget Sound,
the Strait of Georgia (north to the mouth of the Campbell River in
British Columbia), and the portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca east
of the Victoria Sill (see our determination to list three distinct
population segments of Puget Sound/Georgia Basin distinct population
segments of rockfish, 75 FR 22276 (April 28, 2010)).
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) requires that
we determine whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to
indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. In making this
determination, we consider information submitted with and referenced in
the petition, and all other information available in our files. To the
maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days
of the receipt of the petition, and the finding is to be published
promptly in the Federal Register.
In evaluating a petition, the Secretary considers whether it (1)
describes past and present numbers and distribution of the species and
any threats faced by the species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)); (2)
provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a
significant portion of its range (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iii)); and (3) is
accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)(iv)).
The ESA defines ``species'' to include subspecies, or a distinct
population segment of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The
petitioner requested listing of the Georgia Basin populations of China
rockfish and tiger rockfish. We evaluated whether the information
provided or cited in the petition met our standard for ``substantial
information'' as defined in joint ESA implementing regulations issued
by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR 424.14(b)). We
also reviewed other information
[[Page 52929]]
available to us (currently within our files).
Previous Petition to list Puget Sound China Rockfish and Tiger Rockfish
We have received numerous petitions from Mr. Wright. In 1999, he
petitioned us to list 18 species of Puget Sound marine fishes. Based on
the information presented in that petition, and available in our files,
we conducted status reviews on seven of those fishes. Information on
the other eleven fishes (including China rockfish and tiger rockfish)
was insubstantial and we therefore did not conduct status reviews (64
FR 33037; June 21, 1999).
Analysis of Petition
When reviewing a petition to list a species under the ESA, we
consider information provided in the petition as well as information
available in agency files. Mr. Wright's petition provides information
from SCUBA surveys conducted in the Georgia Basin from 1998 to 2009.
The petition points to the fact that there are few observations of
China rockfish and tiger rockfish in these surveys. The petition
provides no analysis to explain how these surveys can be interpreted to
indicate either a low abundance level or a declining trend in
abundance, either of which might be evidence of risk to the species. To
the contrary, the petitioner acknowledges that adults of these two
species tend to remain hidden in rocky habitats, which could make them
difficult for SCUBA divers to observe.
In the absence of any analysis in the petition, we independently
reviewed the information from these surveys and concluded they do not
provide evidence of low abundance or a declining trend in abundance.
The surveys are opportunistic sightings, reported by recreational or
professional divers. There is no research protocol associated with
these SCUBA reports, and the identification of individual fish species
cannot be independently verified. Because the area surveyed and the
level of effort are opportunistic and variable, because the reports are
not collected in a systematic sampling design, and because adults of
these species tend to hide in rocky habitats that could make them
difficult to observe, we concluded that these survey results do not
support inferences about population abundance.
The petition also provides a short description of the total
recreational catch of these species over a 12-year period. The
description appears under a heading in the petition entitled ``Low
Abundance Problem,'' but the petition provides no explanation of how
this information reveals anything about the abundance of these two
species. In the absence of an analysis in the petition, we
independently reviewed the information on recreational catches of these
two species available in our records. The proportion of these two
species in the recreational rockfish catch is low, approximately 1
percent over the 12-year period. Standing alone, however, this low
percentage does not indicate a low occurrence of these rockfish species
relative to others because, as noted above, adults of the petitioned
species tend to remain hidden in rocky habitat and are therefore less
available to anglers. Nor does this information reveal anything about
the absolute abundance of these two species. The catch information
therefore does not indicate that abundance of these species is low
enough to pose a threat to viability.
We agree with the petitioner's assertion that China rockfish and
tiger rockfish typically utilize a small home range and experience low
productivity. However, as the petitioner acknowledges, a small home
range causes individuals to remain hidden in rocky habitat, where they
may experience lower mortality, as a result of less frequent exposure
to predators. Low productivity can be a risk factor in some instances.
However, low productivity is not an indication of declining abundance
(another risk factor) since it reflects a life history trade-off
between fecundity and life span.
Finally, the petitioner fails to demonstrate how any of these
individual pieces of information could be integrated into a trend
analysis or some other type of analysis suggesting the two species are
at risk.
The petitioner states ``This would be an ideal time to conduct a
status review of these two species since most of the required
assessment work has already been done and there is an existing
Biological Review Team (BRT).'' While it is true that NMFS recently
completed an ESA review of five rockfish species in the Puget Sound/
Strait of Georgia (including the formation and use of a BRT), that is
not a basis to conduct additional reviews under ESA section 4(b)(3)(A).
NMFS did not look at information on China rockfish and tiger rockfish
during its review earlier in the year, and the BRT was subsequently
disbanded.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the petition, as well as information readily
available to us, we have determined that the petition does not present
substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned action may
be warranted. If new information becomes available to suggest that
Georgia Basin populations of China rockfish and tiger rockfish may
warrant listing under the ESA, we will reconsider conducting a status
review.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES section).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: August 24, 2010.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-21536 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
