Endangered and Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on Petition To Delist the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon Under the Endangered Species Act, 46322-46325 [2013-18444]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46322
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Notices
of the completed merchandise.23
Therefore, because most of the value of
the finished PRCB is created in Taiwan,
the value of the merchandise as entered
is certainly a significant portion of the
total value of the finished PRCB.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
E. Factors To Consider in Determining
Whether Action Is Necessary
Section 781(a)(3) of the Act identifies
additional factors that the Department
shall consider in determining whether
to include parts or components in an
antidumping duty order as part of an
anti-circumvention inquiry. Of these,
the petitioners argue that importation of
the circumventing merchandise
represents a change in the pattern of
trade.24 The petitioners assert that prior
to imposition of the PRCB Orders, no
party imported such merchandise for
completion into finished PRCBs. The
petitioners argue that interrupting the
production process prior to completion
is neither economical nor rational, and
that the only reason not to complete the
PRCB in the country of origin is to
evade application of antidumping duties
upon importation.25
Analysis
Section 351.225(f)(1) of our
regulations directs that a notice of the
initiation of an anti-circumvention
inquiry issued under 19 CFR 351.225(e)
will include a description of the product
that is the subject of the anticircumvention inquiry and an
explanation of the reasons for the
Department’s decision to initiate an
anti-circumvention inquiry.
The product that is subject of this
anti-circumvention inquiry covers
merchandise from Taiwan that appears
to be series or roll of unfinished PRCBs
that is ready to undergo the final steps
in the production process, i.e., cuttingto-size the merchandise, sealing the bag
on one end to form a closure, and
creating the handles of a finished PRCB
(using a die press to stamp out the
opening).
Based on our analysis of the
petitioners’ request, the Department
determines that the criteria under
section 781(a) of the Act have been
satisfied to warrant the initiation of an
anti-circumvention inquiry.
With regard to whether the
merchandise sold in the United States is
of the same class or kind as the
merchandise covered by the
antidumping duty order, the petitioners
presented information indicating that
the merchandise completed and sold in
the United States is of the same class or
kind as PRCBs from Taiwan which are
subject to the order on PRCBs from
Taiwan.26 With regard to whether the
process of converting this product into
finished PRCBs is a ‘‘minor or
insignificant process,’’ the petitioners
addressed the relevant statutory factors
with the best information available to
them at the time of their anticircumvention inquiry request.27 The
petitioners relied on publicly-available
information for this purpose, in addition
to their own expertise in the production
process. Given that the petitioners do
not have access to cost or price data of
either the Taiwanese producer or the
U.S. importer, the petitioners relied on
their own knowledge of the production
process to draw their conclusions and
demonstrate that, qualitatively, the
value of the conversion of the imported
merchandise into subject merchandise
is minor or insignificant.28
With respect to the value of the
merchandise produced in Taiwan, the
petitioners relied on the information
and arguments in the ‘‘minor or
insignificant process’’ portion of their
anti-circumvention request to indicate
that the value of Taiwan production for
unfinished PRCBs is significant relative
to the total value of finished PRCBs sold
in the United States.29
Finally, the petitioners argued that the
Department should also consider the
pattern of trade as a factor in
determining whether to initiate the anticircumvention inquiry. In particular, the
petitioners asserted that no party
imported merchandise that must
undergo the final step of the production
process to be converted into finished
PRCBs prior to the imposition of the
order on PRCBs from Taiwan, as doing
so is irrational and uneconomical.30
Based on these allegations, we are
initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry
concerning the antidumping duty order
on PRCBs from Taiwan, pursuant to
section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.225(g). The Department is initiating
this anti-circumvention inquiry with
respect to all such merchandise from
Taiwan as described above, regardless of
producer or exporter. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the
Department issues a preliminary
affirmative determination, we will then
instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and
require a cash deposit of estimated
duties, at the applicable rate, for each
unliquidated entry of the merchandise
26 Id.
27 Id.
23 Id.
at 13.
29 Id.
25 Id.
16:14 Jul 30, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
at 13.
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
[FR Doc. 2013–18430 Filed 7–30–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 130702582–3582–01]
RIN 0648–XC747
Endangered and Threatened Species;
90-Day Finding on Petition To Delist
the Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast Evolutionarily
Significant Unit of Coho Salmon Under
the Endangered Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce a 90day finding on a petition to delist the
Southern Oregon/Northern California
Coast (SONCC) Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU) of coho salmon
30 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Dated: July 25, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
SUMMARY:
at 10–11.
at 11–13.
28 Id.
24 Id.
at issue, entered or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption on or after
the date of initiation of the inquiry. In
accordance with section 781(e)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f)(7)(i)(A), we
intend to notify the ITC in the event of
an affirmative preliminary
determination of circumvention under
section 781(d) of the Act.
This notice serves as an invitation to
interested parties to participate in this
anti-circumvention inquiry. The
Department invites all potential
respondents to identify themselves as
producers, importers, or further
processors of such merchandise and to
provide their own evidence and
information that may inform the
Department’s determination. Please
contact the official listed under the
above heading, FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT for instructions
for participating in this inquiry. The
Department will, following consultation
with interested parties, establish a
schedule for questionnaires and
comments on the issues. The
Department intends to issue its final
determination within 300 days of the
date of publication of this initiation
consistent with section 781(f) of the Act.
This notice is published in
accordance with 781(a) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.225(f).
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find
that the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition are
available at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/ or upon request from the Assistant
Regional Administrator, Protected
Resources Division, NMFS, Southwest
Regional Office, 501 West Ocean Blvd.,
Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region
Office, (562) 980–4021; or Dwayne
Meadows, Office of Protected Resources,
(301) 427–8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we
make a finding as to whether a petition
to list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
The Secretary has delegated the
authority for these actions to the NOAA
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.
ESA implementing regulations define
‘‘substantial information’’ as the
‘‘amount of information that would lead
a reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In
determining whether a petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information to list or delist a species, we
take into account information submitted
with, and referenced in, the petition and
all other information readily available in
our files. To the maximum extent
practicable, this finding is to be made
within 90 days of the receipt of the
petition, followed by prompt
publication in the Federal Register (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). ESA
implementing regulations state that a
species may be delisted only if the best
scientific and commercial data available
substantiate that it is neither
endangered nor threatened for one or
more of the following reasons: the
species is extinct; the species is
recovered; or subsequent investigations
show the best scientific or commercial
data available when the species was
listed, or the interpretation of such data,
were in error (50 CFR 424.11(d)).
On May 30, 2013, we received a
petition from the Siskiyou County Water
Users Association (SCWUA) requesting
that we delist the threatened Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast
(SONCC) coho salmon Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU) pursuant to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Jul 30, 2013
Jkt 229001
ESA. This ESU includes all naturally
spawning populations of coho salmon
in coastal streams between Cape Blanco,
Oregon and Punta Gorda, California, as
well as three artificially produced
hatchery stocks (70 FR 37160; June 28,
2005). The SCWUA has previously
submitted several petitions to us
requesting that we delist this ESU. We
analyzed each of those petitions and
found they did not present substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that delisting of the ESU may
be warranted. Negative 90-day findings
were published for these petitions on
October 7, 2011 (76 FR 62375), January
11, 2012 (77 FR 1668), and September
10, 2012 (77 FR 55458).
SCWUA Petition
In this new petition, the SCWUA
asserts that our original listing of the
SONCC coho salmon ESU as threatened
under the ESA (62 FR 24588; May 6,
1997) was unlawful, arbitrary and
capricious because the primary
causative factor for the low abundance
of coho salmon at the time of listing in
1997 was poor ocean conditions in the
North Pacific Ocean, rather than humancaused activities (e.g., dams, agriculture,
etc.). The SCWUA petition bases the
assertion that our 1997 listing
determination for this ESU was in error
because it did not consider a 1997
scientific paper (Mantua et al., 1997)
that describes an interdecadal climate
oscillation pattern in the Pacific Ocean
(named by the authors as the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation or PDO) and its
impact on salmon abundance in the
North Pacific. The SCWUA petition
does not provide a summary of the
actual Mantua et al. (1997) paper, but
does provide an internet link to an
article on our Northwest Fisheries
Science Center (NWFSC) Web site that
summarizes research conducted by Dr.
Nathan Mantua and his colleagues about
the PDO and its relationship to the
survival and abundance of salmon
populations in the Pacific Northwest. A
key point made in the NWFSC web
article is that the listing of many salmon
stocks as threatened and endangered
under the ESA in the 1990s coincided
with a prolonged period of poor ocean
conditions and low salmon abundance.
The SCWUA petition simply repeats
verbatim the article on the NWFSC Web
site with no analysis or interpretation of
how ocean conditions or other factors
(e.g., habitat degradation, hatchery
practices, harvest, etc.) influence the
abundance of coho salmon populations,
or why the SONCC coho salmon ESU
should be delisted. The SCWUA
petition implies, however, that we did
not consider information about the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46323
relationship between ocean conditions
and salmon abundance when we listed
the SONCC coho salmon ESU as
threatened under the ESA in 1997. The
SCWUA petition does not provide any
information on the status (i.e., past or
present information on abundance or
distribution) of the SONCC coho salmon
ESU, any new information or analysis of
the threats to the ESU, or any analysis
of why the ESU should be delisted
based on a consideration of the ESA
section 4(a)(1) listing factors.
Previous Reviews of SONCC Coho
Salmon ESU Under the ESA
We have evaluated the status of the
SONCC coho salmon ESU under the
ESA on three separate occasions (62 FR
24588, May 6, 1997; 70 FR 37160, June
28, 2005; and 76 FR 50447, August 15,
2011). As part of each review, we fully
considered the effects of ocean
productivity on coho salmon
populations in this ESU based on the
best available information at the time.
The following discussion provides an
overview of our past listing decisions
for this ESU, with special emphasis on
how ocean productivity was considered,
including consideration of Mantua et
al., 1997.
We published our original
determination to list the SONCC coho
salmon ESU as threatened on May 6,
1997 (62 FR 24588). In this
determination, we concluded that coho
salmon populations in this ESU were
very depressed from historic levels, that
anthropogenic threats to these
populations were numerous and varied
(e.g., habitat degradation, harvest, and
artificial propagation) and that
anthropogenic threats likely exacerbated
the adverse effects of natural
environmental variability caused by
drought, flooding and ocean
productivity conditions. In our analysis
of factors affecting the ESU, we
concluded that long-term trends in
rainfall and marine productivity
associated with atmospheric conditions
in the North Pacific Ocean likely had a
major influence on coho salmon
production, but that it was unclear
whether the climactic conditions
causing population declines represented
a long-term change that would continue
to adversely affect coho salmon stocks
in the future or whether the conditions
were short-term and could be expected
to reverse themselves in the near future.
Mantua et al. (1997), which described
the PDO phenomenon and its
relationship to abundance of salmon
populations in the North Pacific, was
published after our review was
completed, and so we did not consider
it in our analysis of whether the ESU
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46324
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Notices
was threatened or endangered.
However, we did consider many other
sources of information regarding the
relationship between ocean productivity
in the North Pacific and salmon
population abundance in the analysis of
the ESA section 4(a)(1) listing factors
that informed our final listing
determination. In our review of the
effects of ocean productivity and El
Nino events on salmon populations, we
found that several researchers had
suggested mechanisms linking
atmospheric and ocean physics and
ocean fish populations (e.g., Rogers,
1984; Nickelson, 1986; and several
others) and that others had tried to
correlate the production and survival of
salmon with environmental factors (e.g.,
Pearcy, 1992; Neeley, 1994). We also
cited studies that had reported on the
relationship between salmon survival
and sea surface temperatures and
salinity during the first few months that
salmonids are at sea (Vernon, 1958;
Holtby and Scrivener, 1989; Holtby et
al., 1990) and others that had found
relationships between salmon
production and sea surface temperatures
(Francis and Sibley, 1991; Roger, 1984;
Cooney et al., 1993). We also cited
studies that had tried to link salmon
production to oceanic and atmospheric
climate change (Beamish and Bouillon,
1993; Ward, 1993) and reported that
Francis and Sibley (1991) and Francis et
al. (1992) had developed a model
linking decadal-scale atmospheric
variability and salmon production.
Finally, we cited studies by Scarnecchia
(1981) that suggested nearshore ocean
conditions during the spring and
summer along the California coast may
dramatically affect year class strength of
salmon populations from this area and
by Bottom et al. (1986) that suggested
coho salmon populations along the
California and Oregon coasts might be
especially sensitive to upwelling
patterns because the region lacks
extensive bays and estuaries such as
those found further north.
In response to the 1991 U.S. District
Court decision in the Alsea Valley
Alliance v. Evans, 161 F.Supp.2d 1154
(D. Or. 2001), appeal dismissed, 358
F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004), and several
petitions, we conducted updated status
reviews of all west coast salmon and
steelhead ESUs, including the SONCC
coho salmon ESU, in the early 2000s
(Good et al., 2005). Following
completion of this review and
development of a new policy for
considering hatchery populations in our
listing decisions, we published listing
determinations in 2005 for 16 ESUs of
west coast salmon, including the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Jul 30, 2013
Jkt 229001
SONCC coho salmon ESU (70 FR 37160;
June 28, 2005). We determined that this
ESU continued to warrant listing as
threatened. In the proposed listing
determination for west coast salmon and
steelhead ESUs (69 FR 33102; June 14,
2004), we specifically reviewed marine
productivity and its relationship to the
abundance of salmon populations. We
concluded there was evidence
demonstrating that recurring, decadal
scale patterns of ocean-atmosphere
climate variability in the North Pacific
(Mantua et al., 1997; Zhang et al., 1997)
were correlated with salmon population
abundance in the Pacific Northwest and
Alaska (Hare et al., 1999; Mueter et al.,
2002) and that survival rates in the
marine environment are strong
determinants of salmon and steelhead
population abundance. In addition, we
recognized that many salmon and
steelhead populations in the Pacific
Northwest had experienced low ocean
survival during a period of unfavorable
ocean conditions from approximately
1977–1997 and that there was evidence
of an important change in the PDO
starting in 1998 that likely resulted in
increased salmon survival and
population abundance through the early
2000s. Although we found that the
relationship between ocean
productivity, ocean survival and salmon
population abundance appeared to be
well established, we concluded that our
ability to predict future changes in
ocean-climate regimes and their
influence on salmon productivity and
population abundance was limited. For
this reason, we were reluctant to make
any assumptions or predictions about
the future behavior of ocean-climate
regimes or their effects on the
distribution and abundance of salmon
populations in our listing
determinations. Although we
recognized that salmon populations
would likely respond positively to
favorable ocean-climate regimes and
increased ocean productivity, we felt
such population increases might only be
temporary and that they could mask the
adverse impacts of underlying threats
such as habitat degradation and loss,
harvest impacts and adverse hatchery
impacts, all of which are recognized as
threats to west coast salmon and
steelhead ESUs, including the SONCC
coho salmon ESU. We concluded our
analysis by indicating that our principal
concern was not if and how salmon and
steelhead populations would respond to
favorable ocean conditions, but rather
how they would respond during periods
of poor ocean survival when their
freshwater and estuarine habitat was
degraded.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In 2011 we completed a 5-year review
of the SONCC coho salmon ESU that
concluded its status had worsened
because of continued low population
abundance levels, ongoing
anthropogenic threats, and other factors
including poor ocean conditions
(Williams et al., 2011; 76 FR 50447,
August 15, 2011). Although the 5-year
review did not specifically cite Mantua
et al. (1997), it did cite and rely upon
Good et al. (2005), which discussed that
paper. In addition, we specifically
considered the effects of ocean
conditions on marine survival and
abundance of coho salmon in this ESU
as part of our analysis of the ESA
section 4(a)(1) listing factors. Our
analysis of ocean conditions indicated
that marine survival for coho salmon
from the Cole Rivers hatchery in Oregon
varied substantially between 2000 and
2006. Survival averaged approximately
2.2 percent from 2000 to 2004, but was
extremely low for the 2005 and 2006
broodyears (0.05–0.07 percent). We
found that strong upwelling in 2007
resulted in better ocean conditions
(MacFarlane et al., 2008; Peterson et al.,
2010) and that marine conditions were
also favorable in 2008 and 2009
(NWFSC, 2011). However, despite the
favorable ocean conditions in 2007 and
2008, we also determined that 2005 and
2006 broodyears experienced poor
marine survival. We concluded that
improved ocean conditions had not
resulted in improved marine survival
and increased abundance of coho
salmon populations as expected, and
that poor marine survival had
contributed to recent population
declines, which were a significant threat
to the ESU.
Petition Finding
We carefully analyzed the information
in the SCWUA petition and our record
associated with past listing
determinations for the SONCC coho
salmon ESU. Based on this review, we
conclude that our listing determinations
for the SONCC coho salmon ESU have
fully evaluated the relationship between
ocean conditions, the PDO, and coho
salmon abundance using the best
scientific and commercial data available
and that the SCWUA petition does not
provide any additional substantial
scientific or commercial information
that we ignored or did not consider in
our listing determinations. The SCWUA
petition does not present any additional
substantial scientific or commercial
information related to whether the
SONCC coho salmon ESU is recovered;
extinct; or the best scientific or
commercial data available when the
species was listed, or the interpretation
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Notices
of such data, were in error. Moreover,
none of the information in the petition
modifies the underlying scientific basis
for our original determination to list the
SONCC coho salmon ESU or causes us
to re-evaluate our analysis of delisting
petitions that were previously submitted
by the petitioner. Accordingly, we find
that the SCWUA petition does not
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action to delist the
SONCC coho salmon ESU may be
warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of the references used
in this finding is available upon request
(see ADDRESSES).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: July 26, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
Performing the functions and duties of the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–18444 Filed 7–30–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XC785
Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Pacific Council); Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public teleconference.
AGENCY:
The Groundfish
Subcommittee of the Pacific Council’s
Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC) will convene a teleconference,
which is open to the public. To attend
the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee
teleconference, participants need to dial
the following toll-free number and,
when requested, the access code for the
teleconference: telephone: (866) 781–
8576; Access code: 67358852
DATES: The SSC Groundfish
Subcommittee teleconference will be
held beginning at 10:30 a.m., Friday,
August 16, 2013 and end at 12 p.m. or
as necessary to complete business for
the day.
ADDRESSES: Does not apply. No listening
stations are specified for the SSC
Groundfish Subcommittee
teleconference.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Jul 30, 2013
Jkt 229001
Council address: Pacific Council,
7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101,
Portland, OR 97220–1384.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr.
John DeVore, Pacific Council;
telephone: (503) 820–2280.
The
purpose of the SSC Groundfish
Subcommittee teleconference is to
discuss analytical approaches for a
meta-analysis of elasmobranch harvest
rates designed to determine a reasonable
proxy harvest rate designed to achieve
maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) for
elasmobranchs managed in the Pacific
Coast Fishery Management Plan. No
management actions will be decided by
the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee. The
Subcommittee’s role will be
development of analyses used to inform
proxy FMSY harvest rates for
consideration by the Pacific Council’s
SSC at its September meeting in Boise,
ID. Any proxy FMSY harvest rates
recommended for managing
elasmobranchs will inform Pacific
Council decisions for harvest
specifications to be implemented in
2015 and beyond.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in the teleconference agenda
may come before the Subcommittee
participants for discussion, those issues
may not be the subject of formal SSC
Groundfish Subcommittee action during
this meeting. Subcommittee action will
be restricted to those issues specifically
listed in this notice and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
that require emergency action under
Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, provided the public has been
notified of the Subpanel participants’
intent to take final action to address the
emergency.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr.
Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820–2280 at
least 5 days prior to the teleconference
date.
Dated: July 25, 2013.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–18297 Filed 7–30–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46325
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION
[Docket No: CFPB–2013–0025]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request
Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection.
ACTION: Notice and request for comment.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (Bureau) is proposing
to renew the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval for an existing
information collection, titled, ‘‘Truth in
Savings (Regulation DD) 12 CFR 1030.’’
DATES: Written comments are
encouraged and must be received on or
before August 30, 2013 to be assured of
consideration.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by the title of the information
collection, OMB Control Number (see
below), and docket number (see above),
by any of the following methods:
• Electronic: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20552. Please
note that comments submitted by fax or
email and those submitted after the
comment period will not be accepted. In
general, all comments received will be
posted without change to
regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Sensitive
personal information, such as account
numbers or social security numbers,
should not be included.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Documentation prepared in support of
this information collection request is
available at www.reginfo.gov. Requests
for additional information should be
directed to the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA
Office), 1700 G Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435–9575,
or email: PRA@cfpb.gov. Please do not
submit comments to this email box.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: Truth in Savings
(Regulation DD) 12 CFR Part 1030.
OMB Control Number: 3170–0004.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Affected Public: Businesses or other
for-profits (insured depository
institutions with total assets of more
than $10 billion and their depository
affiliates).
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46322-46325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18444]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 130702582-3582-01]
RIN 0648-XC747
Endangered and Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on Petition To
Delist the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily
Significant Unit of Coho Salmon Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to delist
the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU) of coho salmon
[[Page 46323]]
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find
that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition are available at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ or upon request from the Assistant Regional
Administrator, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Southwest Regional
Office, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region
Office, (562) 980-4021; or Dwayne Meadows, Office of Protected
Resources, (301) 427-8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires
that we make a finding as to whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The
Secretary has delegated the authority for these actions to the NOAA
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. ESA implementing regulations
define ``substantial information'' as the ``amount of information that
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in
the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In determining
whether a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information to list or delist a species, we take into account
information submitted with, and referenced in, the petition and all
other information readily available in our files. To the maximum extent
practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the receipt
of the petition, followed by prompt publication in the Federal Register
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). ESA implementing regulations state that a
species may be delisted only if the best scientific and commercial data
available substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened for
one or more of the following reasons: the species is extinct; the
species is recovered; or subsequent investigations show the best
scientific or commercial data available when the species was listed, or
the interpretation of such data, were in error (50 CFR 424.11(d)).
On May 30, 2013, we received a petition from the Siskiyou County
Water Users Association (SCWUA) requesting that we delist the
threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho
salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) pursuant to the ESA. This
ESU includes all naturally spawning populations of coho salmon in
coastal streams between Cape Blanco, Oregon and Punta Gorda,
California, as well as three artificially produced hatchery stocks (70
FR 37160; June 28, 2005). The SCWUA has previously submitted several
petitions to us requesting that we delist this ESU. We analyzed each of
those petitions and found they did not present substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating that delisting of the ESU may be
warranted. Negative 90-day findings were published for these petitions
on October 7, 2011 (76 FR 62375), January 11, 2012 (77 FR 1668), and
September 10, 2012 (77 FR 55458).
SCWUA Petition
In this new petition, the SCWUA asserts that our original listing
of the SONCC coho salmon ESU as threatened under the ESA (62 FR 24588;
May 6, 1997) was unlawful, arbitrary and capricious because the primary
causative factor for the low abundance of coho salmon at the time of
listing in 1997 was poor ocean conditions in the North Pacific Ocean,
rather than human-caused activities (e.g., dams, agriculture, etc.).
The SCWUA petition bases the assertion that our 1997 listing
determination for this ESU was in error because it did not consider a
1997 scientific paper (Mantua et al., 1997) that describes an
interdecadal climate oscillation pattern in the Pacific Ocean (named by
the authors as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO) and its impact
on salmon abundance in the North Pacific. The SCWUA petition does not
provide a summary of the actual Mantua et al. (1997) paper, but does
provide an internet link to an article on our Northwest Fisheries
Science Center (NWFSC) Web site that summarizes research conducted by
Dr. Nathan Mantua and his colleagues about the PDO and its relationship
to the survival and abundance of salmon populations in the Pacific
Northwest. A key point made in the NWFSC web article is that the
listing of many salmon stocks as threatened and endangered under the
ESA in the 1990s coincided with a prolonged period of poor ocean
conditions and low salmon abundance. The SCWUA petition simply repeats
verbatim the article on the NWFSC Web site with no analysis or
interpretation of how ocean conditions or other factors (e.g., habitat
degradation, hatchery practices, harvest, etc.) influence the abundance
of coho salmon populations, or why the SONCC coho salmon ESU should be
delisted. The SCWUA petition implies, however, that we did not consider
information about the relationship between ocean conditions and salmon
abundance when we listed the SONCC coho salmon ESU as threatened under
the ESA in 1997. The SCWUA petition does not provide any information on
the status (i.e., past or present information on abundance or
distribution) of the SONCC coho salmon ESU, any new information or
analysis of the threats to the ESU, or any analysis of why the ESU
should be delisted based on a consideration of the ESA section 4(a)(1)
listing factors.
Previous Reviews of SONCC Coho Salmon ESU Under the ESA
We have evaluated the status of the SONCC coho salmon ESU under the
ESA on three separate occasions (62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997; 70 FR 37160,
June 28, 2005; and 76 FR 50447, August 15, 2011). As part of each
review, we fully considered the effects of ocean productivity on coho
salmon populations in this ESU based on the best available information
at the time. The following discussion provides an overview of our past
listing decisions for this ESU, with special emphasis on how ocean
productivity was considered, including consideration of Mantua et al.,
1997.
We published our original determination to list the SONCC coho
salmon ESU as threatened on May 6, 1997 (62 FR 24588). In this
determination, we concluded that coho salmon populations in this ESU
were very depressed from historic levels, that anthropogenic threats to
these populations were numerous and varied (e.g., habitat degradation,
harvest, and artificial propagation) and that anthropogenic threats
likely exacerbated the adverse effects of natural environmental
variability caused by drought, flooding and ocean productivity
conditions. In our analysis of factors affecting the ESU, we concluded
that long-term trends in rainfall and marine productivity associated
with atmospheric conditions in the North Pacific Ocean likely had a
major influence on coho salmon production, but that it was unclear
whether the climactic conditions causing population declines
represented a long-term change that would continue to adversely affect
coho salmon stocks in the future or whether the conditions were short-
term and could be expected to reverse themselves in the near future.
Mantua et al. (1997), which described the PDO phenomenon and its
relationship to abundance of salmon populations in the North Pacific,
was published after our review was completed, and so we did not
consider it in our analysis of whether the ESU
[[Page 46324]]
was threatened or endangered. However, we did consider many other
sources of information regarding the relationship between ocean
productivity in the North Pacific and salmon population abundance in
the analysis of the ESA section 4(a)(1) listing factors that informed
our final listing determination. In our review of the effects of ocean
productivity and El Nino events on salmon populations, we found that
several researchers had suggested mechanisms linking atmospheric and
ocean physics and ocean fish populations (e.g., Rogers, 1984;
Nickelson, 1986; and several others) and that others had tried to
correlate the production and survival of salmon with environmental
factors (e.g., Pearcy, 1992; Neeley, 1994). We also cited studies that
had reported on the relationship between salmon survival and sea
surface temperatures and salinity during the first few months that
salmonids are at sea (Vernon, 1958; Holtby and Scrivener, 1989; Holtby
et al., 1990) and others that had found relationships between salmon
production and sea surface temperatures (Francis and Sibley, 1991;
Roger, 1984; Cooney et al., 1993). We also cited studies that had tried
to link salmon production to oceanic and atmospheric climate change
(Beamish and Bouillon, 1993; Ward, 1993) and reported that Francis and
Sibley (1991) and Francis et al. (1992) had developed a model linking
decadal-scale atmospheric variability and salmon production. Finally,
we cited studies by Scarnecchia (1981) that suggested nearshore ocean
conditions during the spring and summer along the California coast may
dramatically affect year class strength of salmon populations from this
area and by Bottom et al. (1986) that suggested coho salmon populations
along the California and Oregon coasts might be especially sensitive to
upwelling patterns because the region lacks extensive bays and
estuaries such as those found further north.
In response to the 1991 U.S. District Court decision in the Alsea
Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F.Supp.2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001), appeal
dismissed, 358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004), and several petitions, we
conducted updated status reviews of all west coast salmon and steelhead
ESUs, including the SONCC coho salmon ESU, in the early 2000s (Good et
al., 2005). Following completion of this review and development of a
new policy for considering hatchery populations in our listing
decisions, we published listing determinations in 2005 for 16 ESUs of
west coast salmon, including the SONCC coho salmon ESU (70 FR 37160;
June 28, 2005). We determined that this ESU continued to warrant
listing as threatened. In the proposed listing determination for west
coast salmon and steelhead ESUs (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004), we
specifically reviewed marine productivity and its relationship to the
abundance of salmon populations. We concluded there was evidence
demonstrating that recurring, decadal scale patterns of ocean-
atmosphere climate variability in the North Pacific (Mantua et al.,
1997; Zhang et al., 1997) were correlated with salmon population
abundance in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (Hare et al., 1999;
Mueter et al., 2002) and that survival rates in the marine environment
are strong determinants of salmon and steelhead population abundance.
In addition, we recognized that many salmon and steelhead populations
in the Pacific Northwest had experienced low ocean survival during a
period of unfavorable ocean conditions from approximately 1977-1997 and
that there was evidence of an important change in the PDO starting in
1998 that likely resulted in increased salmon survival and population
abundance through the early 2000s. Although we found that the
relationship between ocean productivity, ocean survival and salmon
population abundance appeared to be well established, we concluded that
our ability to predict future changes in ocean-climate regimes and
their influence on salmon productivity and population abundance was
limited. For this reason, we were reluctant to make any assumptions or
predictions about the future behavior of ocean-climate regimes or their
effects on the distribution and abundance of salmon populations in our
listing determinations. Although we recognized that salmon populations
would likely respond positively to favorable ocean-climate regimes and
increased ocean productivity, we felt such population increases might
only be temporary and that they could mask the adverse impacts of
underlying threats such as habitat degradation and loss, harvest
impacts and adverse hatchery impacts, all of which are recognized as
threats to west coast salmon and steelhead ESUs, including the SONCC
coho salmon ESU. We concluded our analysis by indicating that our
principal concern was not if and how salmon and steelhead populations
would respond to favorable ocean conditions, but rather how they would
respond during periods of poor ocean survival when their freshwater and
estuarine habitat was degraded.
In 2011 we completed a 5-year review of the SONCC coho salmon ESU
that concluded its status had worsened because of continued low
population abundance levels, ongoing anthropogenic threats, and other
factors including poor ocean conditions (Williams et al., 2011; 76 FR
50447, August 15, 2011). Although the 5-year review did not
specifically cite Mantua et al. (1997), it did cite and rely upon Good
et al. (2005), which discussed that paper. In addition, we specifically
considered the effects of ocean conditions on marine survival and
abundance of coho salmon in this ESU as part of our analysis of the ESA
section 4(a)(1) listing factors. Our analysis of ocean conditions
indicated that marine survival for coho salmon from the Cole Rivers
hatchery in Oregon varied substantially between 2000 and 2006. Survival
averaged approximately 2.2 percent from 2000 to 2004, but was extremely
low for the 2005 and 2006 broodyears (0.05-0.07 percent). We found that
strong upwelling in 2007 resulted in better ocean conditions
(MacFarlane et al., 2008; Peterson et al., 2010) and that marine
conditions were also favorable in 2008 and 2009 (NWFSC, 2011). However,
despite the favorable ocean conditions in 2007 and 2008, we also
determined that 2005 and 2006 broodyears experienced poor marine
survival. We concluded that improved ocean conditions had not resulted
in improved marine survival and increased abundance of coho salmon
populations as expected, and that poor marine survival had contributed
to recent population declines, which were a significant threat to the
ESU.
Petition Finding
We carefully analyzed the information in the SCWUA petition and our
record associated with past listing determinations for the SONCC coho
salmon ESU. Based on this review, we conclude that our listing
determinations for the SONCC coho salmon ESU have fully evaluated the
relationship between ocean conditions, the PDO, and coho salmon
abundance using the best scientific and commercial data available and
that the SCWUA petition does not provide any additional substantial
scientific or commercial information that we ignored or did not
consider in our listing determinations. The SCWUA petition does not
present any additional substantial scientific or commercial information
related to whether the SONCC coho salmon ESU is recovered; extinct; or
the best scientific or commercial data available when the species was
listed, or the interpretation
[[Page 46325]]
of such data, were in error. Moreover, none of the information in the
petition modifies the underlying scientific basis for our original
determination to list the SONCC coho salmon ESU or causes us to re-
evaluate our analysis of delisting petitions that were previously
submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, we find that the SCWUA
petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action to delist the SONCC
coho salmon ESU may be warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of the references used in this finding is available
upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: July 26, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Performing the functions and
duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-18444 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
