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 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 http://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