83 FR 8410 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Chinook Salmon in the Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers Basin as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 39 (February 27, 2018)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 39 (February 27, 2018)
| Page Range | 8410-8414 | |
| FR Document | 2018-03906 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 8410-8414] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-03906] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 [Docket No. 171128999-8169-01] RIN 0648-XF872 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Chinook Salmon in the Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers Basin as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and [[Page 8411]] Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: 90-Day petition finding, request for information, and initiation of status review. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list as threatened or endangered the Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers (UKTR) Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) or, alternatively, create a new ESU to describe Klamath Spring Chinook salmon and list the new ESU as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The petition also requests that we designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned actions may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of the Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin to determine if the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to this species from any interested party. DATES: Scientific and commercial information pertinent to the petitioned action must be received by April 30, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by ``Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers Chinook Petition (NOAA-NMFS-2018- 0002),'' by either of the following methods:Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0002, click the ``Comment Now'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. Mail or hand-delivery: Protected Resources Division, West Coast Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite #1100, Portland, OR 97232. Attn: Gary Rule. Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Electronic copies of the petition and other materials are available on the NMFS West Coast Region website at www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov. Please direct other inquiries to Gary Rule, NMFS West Coast Region at gary.rule@noaa.gov, (503) 230-5424; or Maggie Miller, NMFS Office of Protected Resources at margaret.h.miller@noaa.gov, (301) 427-8457. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 2, 2017, the Secretary of Commerce received a petition from the Karuk Tribe and Salmon River Restoration Council (hereafter, the Petitioners) to list as threatened or endangered the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU or, alternatively, create and list a new ESU to describe Klamath Spring Chinook salmon. In their petition, the Petitioners used various phrases as well as ``Klamath Spring Chinook'' to describe the area in which they are requesting that we create a new ESU for spring- run Chinook salmon. Because their request is generally made in reference to the spring-run Chinook salmon component of the UKTR ESU of Chinook salmon, we will use the description of the currently defined ESU to describe the area in which the Petitioners are requesting that we create a new spring-run Chinook salmon ESU. We will hereinafter refer to that area as the UKTR Basin. We described all Klamath River Basin populations of Chinook salmon from the Trinity River and Klamath River upstream from the confluence of the Trinity River as the UKTR ESU, which includes both spring-run and fall-run fish (63 FR 11482; March 9, 1998). The Petitioners also request designation of critical habitat concurrently with the listing. Copies of the petition are available as described above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). ESA Statutory, Regulatory, Policy Provisions, and Evaluation Framework Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a ``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review. Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). In 1991, we issued the Policy on Applying the Definition of Species Under the Endangered Species Act to Pacific Salmon (ESU Policy; 56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991), which explains that a Pacific salmon population will be considered a DPS, and hence a ``species'' under the ESA, if it represents an ``evolutionarily significant unit'' of the biological species. The two criteria for delineating an ESU are: (1) It is substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations, and (2) it represents an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. The ESU Policy was used to define the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU in 1998 (63 FR 11482; March 9, 1998), and we use it exclusively for defining distinct population segments of Pacific salmon. A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, ``the Services'') policy clarifies the Services' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment'' for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). In announcing this policy, the Services indicated that the ESU Policy for Pacific salmon was consistent with the DPS Policy and that NMFS would continue to use the ESU Policy for Pacific salmon. A species, subspecies, DPS, or ESU is ``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the [[Page 8412]] ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address identified threats; or any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)). ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define substantial scientific or commercial information in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted. Conclusions drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific or commercial information will not be considered ``substantial information.'' In reaching the initial (90-day) finding on the petition, we will consider the information described in sections 50 CFR 424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if applicable). Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted will depend in part on the degree to which the petition includes the following types of information: (1) Information on current population status and trends and estimates of current population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting upon the species; (3) whether and to what extent any or all of the factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened species (i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is likely to become so within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its habitat are; (4) information on adequacy of regulatory protections and effectiveness of conservation activities by States as well as other parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d). If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the new information, along with the previously submitted information, is treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g). We may also consider information readily available at the time the determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g., publications, maps, reports, letters from authorities). See 50 CFR 424.14(c)(6). The ``substantial scientific or commercial information'' standard must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of, the listing status of that species (whether in response to a petition or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition received thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where the prior review resulted in a final agency action--such as a final listing determination, 90-day not-substantial finding, or 12-month not- warranted finding--a petitioned action will generally not be considered to present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the action may be warranted unless the petition provides new information or analyses not previously considered. At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future. To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, in light of the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction risk such that listing, delisting, or reclassification may be warranted; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information [[Page 8413]] indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response. UKTR Chinook Salmon ESU We completed the first status review for UKTR Basin Chinook salmon in 1998 (Myers et al., 1998). Myers et al. (1998) defined the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU as including all spring-run and fall-run populations from the Trinity River and Klamath River upstream from the confluence of the Trinity River. Based on the information in the status review, we determined that the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU was not at a significant risk of extinction, nor was it likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, and therefore did not warrant listing under the ESA (63 FR 11482; March 9, 1998). On January 28, 2011, the Secretary of Commerce received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Oregon Wild, Environmental Protection Information Center, and The Larch Company, to list UKTR Chinook salmon under the ESA and designate critical habitat. We made a positive 90-day finding, conducted a status review, and made a 12-month not warranted finding on the petitioned actions (77 FR 19597; April 2, 2012). In reaching our not warranted conclusion, we confirmed our earlier finding that spring- run and fall-run Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin constitute a single ESU and, consistent with our earlier finding, concluded that the overall extinction risk of the ESU was considered to be low over the subsequent 100 years. Evaluation of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files The petition contains information and arguments in support of listing Chinook salmon under the two alternatives requested by the Petitioners. Under the first listing alternative, the Petitioners request that we list as threatened or endangered the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU, in contrast to our previous finding in 2012 that listing this ESU was not warranted (77 FR 19597; April 2, 2012). In support of their request, the Petitioners present information about recent trends in abundance of the spring-run component of the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU, arguing that those trends indicate that the ESU should be listed. The Petitioners state that the total number of naturally spawning spring-run Chinook salmon since 1990 has averaged 9,983 spawners (range: 2,133 to 35,827); however, in recent years, the abundance of spring-run Chinook has declined. In fact, three out of the six worst years on record were in the past decade, with 4,215 spawners in 2014, 2,638 in 2015, and 2,133 in 2016. The Petitioners note that 2017 was likely to be even lower and that this trend places the ESU at risk of extinction. In our previous not warranted finding (77 FR 19597; April 2, 2012) we found that recent abundance estimates were low relative to historical abundance estimates and that this was most evident in two of the three spring-run populations units evaluated. Specifically, the Biological Review Team (BRT) that was asked to review the status of the UKTR Chinook salmon in 2011 noted concerns about the low numbers of spawners within the spring-run populations and while they concluded that these low numbers did not pose an immediate risk of extinction to the ESU, they were concerned that appropriate habitat and conditions that allow for the expression of the spring-run life history were limited (Williams et al. 2011). Given the new information presented by the Petitioners, which show a continued decline in spring-run spawners since the 2011 review, we find that a reasonable person would conclude that low spawner abundance may be impacting overall genetic diversity of the ESU to the point where the petitioned action may be warranted, and that further evaluation is necessary. The Petitioners also present information on the threats facing the spring-run component of the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU. The Petitioners argue that all five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors contribute to the need to list the species. However, we find that they have only provided support for two of the factors: Disease and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The Petitioners claim that recent observations indicate high rates of disease in juvenile Chinook salmon. In 2014, 81 percent of juvenile Chinook salmon sampled were infected with the lethal parasite Ceratonova shasta. In 2015, this percentage rose to 90 percent of sampled juvenile Chinook salmon. These high rates of infection were purportedly the result of poor water quality, low flows, and prolonged absence of flushing flows necessary to scour the river bed (Hillemeier et al. 2017). While we do not have additional information in our files on disease risks to Chinook salmon, we consider infection from C. shasta to pose a significant risk to coho salmon in the Klamath River basin (NMFS 2013). In the latest 5-year review of the threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon ESU, we found that severe infection of juvenile coho salmon by C. shasta may contribute to declining adult coho salmon returns in the Klamath basin. Risk of mortality from infection (referred to as ceratomyxosis) was greatest at higher temperatures, and given the drought conditions that have persisted for the last four years and associated high water temperatures, we concluded that the risk from ceratomyxosis has likely been higher in the last five years than in the previous five years (NMFS 2016). Based on the information from the Petitioners, infection and associated mortality from ceratomyxosis may also be a significant threat to Chinook salmon in the Klamath, particularly given these two species' similar life histories. Considering the information indicating a declining abundance of spring- run spawners, we find that a reasonable person would conclude that additional mortality of UKTR chinook salmon from disease indicates that the petitioned action may be warranted. The Petitioners also claim that current hatchery practices and harvest management are inadequate, with current exploitation rates of the species leading to the observed decline in the ESU. In support of their argument, the petitioners claim that the majority of the naturally spawning Chinook salmon in the Trinity basin are of hatchery origin. The Petitioners state that the high proportion of hatchery fish further supports their argument about the low number of returning spring-run Chinook salmon. The Petitioners also provide information on the inadequacy of harvest management. The Petitioners describe how fisheries managers have expressed the need to manage spring-run Chinook salmon. In 2003, the Klamath Fisheries Management Council reported to the Pacific Fisheries Management Council that they intended to develop management recommendations aimed at the conservation of spring-run Chinook salmon while preserving meaningful harvest opportunities for both ocean and river fisheries. The Petitioners claim that harvest management objectives were never set. We also do not have any information in our files to show that current regulatory mechanisms adequately address the threats identified above for spring-run Chinook salmon. Therefore, we find that a reasonable person would conclude that the inadequacy of existing regulatory measures to address threats of overutilization or disease of the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. Under the second recommended listing alternative, the Petitioners [[Page 8414]] present new genetic evidence to suggest the spring-run Chinook salmon populations in the UKTR Basin may qualify as a separate ESU from the fall-run populations and request this new ESU to be listed based on the threats identified above. Based on biological, genetic, and ecological information compiled and reviewed as part of the status review for Chinook salmon (Myers et al., 1998), we included all spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon populations in the Klamath River Basin upstream from the confluence of the Klamath and Trinity rivers in the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU (63 FR 11482; March 9, 1998). In our 2012 not warranted decision (77 FR 19597; April 2, 2012), we reconfirmed the configuration of the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU. In both cases, we found that spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon populations in the UKTR Basin were genetically very similar and not reproductively isolated from each other. The Petitioners contend the findings from a recently published article on the evolutionary basis of premature migration in Pacific salmon (Prince et al. 2017) indicate that spring-run Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin should be considered a separate ESU, and therefore eligible to be listed as threatened or endangered. Prince et al. (2017) suggest that their results indicate that premature migration (e.g. spring-run Chinook salmon) arose from a single evolutionary event within the species and, if lost, are not likely to re-evolve in time frames relevant to conservation planning. Therefore, the Petitioners contend that the new genetic information indicates that spring-run Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin satisfy the criteria for a species to be considered an ESU because: (1) They are substantially reproductively isolated, and (2) they represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. We have reviewed the new genetic information and find that a reasonable person may conclude that spring- run Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin would qualify as an ESU pursuant to our ESU Policy. Petition Finding After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, we conclude the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned actions to list as threatened or endangered the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU or, alternatively, to create a new ESU to describe spring-run Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin and list the new ESU as threatened or endangered may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)), we will commence a status review of the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU. During our status review, we will first consider the request to designate a new ESU to describe spring-run Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin in light of our ESU Policy (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991). If we determine that the spring-run component qualifies as a separate ESU, then we will evaluate its status to determine whether it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Otherwise, we will evaluate the status of the existing UKTR Chinook salmon ESU to determine if it warrants listing. As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, we will publish a finding as to whether listing an ESU as endangered or threatened is warranted. Information Solicited To ensure that our status review is informed by the best available scientific and commercial information, we are opening a 60-day public comment period to solicit information on Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin. We also solicited information on Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin with our 90-day finding on the previous petition (76 FR 20302; April 12, 2011). Therefore, please do not re-submit information submitted in response to that previous finding. We request information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, agricultural and forestry groups, conservation groups, fishing groups, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the current and/or historical status of Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin. Specifically, we request information regarding: (1) Species abundance; (2) species productivity; (3) species distribution or population spatial structure; (4) patterns of phenotypic, genotypic, and life history diversity; (5) habitat conditions and associated limiting factors and threats; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and their habitats; (7) information on the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, whether protections are being implemented, and whether they are proving effective in conserving the species; (8) data concerning the status and trends of identified limiting factors or threats; (9) information on targeted harvest (commercial and recreational) and bycatch of the species; (10) other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes; and (11) information concerning the impacts of environmental variability and climate change on survival, recruitment, distribution, and/or extinction risk. We are also requesting information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat for Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin. Please identify: Physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations; areas occupied by the species containing those physical and biological features; and unoccupied areas essential for conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A); 50 CFR 424.12). We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents. References Cited The complete citations for the references used in this document can be obtained by contacting NMFS (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or on our web page at: www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov. Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: February 21, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2018-03906 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
![8410 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
carbons and the oxyethylene content is ppm, Goat, meat byproducts, except America (d/b/a ADAMA, 3120
3–13 moles (CAS Reg. Nos. 53100–65– kidney at 0.02 ppm, Hog, kidney at 0.02 Highlands Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC
5, 194289–64–0- 34398–00–0, 9006–27– ppm, Horse, fat at 0.02 ppm, Horse, 27604), requests to establish a tolerance
3, 32761–35–6, 53467–81–5, 518299– kidney at 0.03 ppm, Horse, meat at 0.02 in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
31–5, 34397–99–4) when used as a ppm, Horse, meat byproducts, except nematicide, fluensulfone, including its
stabilizer and solubilizing agent in kidney at 0.02 ppm, Milk at 0.02 ppm, metabolites and degradates, in or on the
pesticide formulations applied to Sheep, fat at 0.02 ppm, Sheep, kidney following commodities: Citrus dried
growing crops or raw agricultural at 0.03 ppm, Sheep, meat at 0.02 ppm, pulp at 0.4 ppm; Crop Group 10–10,
commodities after harvest at a Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney citrus fruit at 0.15 ppm; peanut at 0.15
maximum concentration in pesticide at 0.02 ppm. The HPLC–OCED is used ppm; peanut, hay at 8.0 ppm; and
formulation of 25% by weight. The to measure and evaluate the chemical peanut, meal at 0.30 ppm. The LC–MS/
petitioner believes no analytical method acetochlor. Contact: RD. MS is used to measure and evaluate the
is needed because it is not required for 3. PP 7F8552. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2017– metabolite Butene Sulfonic Acid (M–
the establishment of a tolerance 0234). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 3627). Contact: RD.
exemption for inert ingredients. Contact: P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419– 7. PP 7F8615. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–
RD. 18300, requests to establish a tolerance 0665). Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569,
2. PP IN–11059. (EPA–HQ–OPP– in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the Yuma, AZ 85366, requests to establish
2017–0574) Nutri Ag, Inc., 4740 N insecticide, thiamethoxam, {3-[(2- a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
Interstate 35 E, Waxahachie, TX 75165 chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5- residues of the fungicide, zoxamide, in
requests to establish an exemption from methyl-N-nitro-4H-1,3,5-oxadiazin-4- or on crop subgroup 8–10B (pepper/
the requirement of a tolerance for imine} (CAS Reg. No. 153719–23–4) and eggplant subgroup) at 0.9 ppm. The
residues of zinc oxide (CAS Reg. No. its metabolite[N-(2-chloro-thiazol-5- Rohm and Haas Company Method
1314–13–2) when used as an inert ylmethyl)-N′-methyl-N′-nitro-guanidine, Number 34–99–85 is used to measure
ingredient (stabilizer) in pesticide in or on Alfalfa, seed at 1 ppm; and and evaluate the chemical zoxamide, 3,
formulations applied to growing crops sugarcane at 0.01 ppm. Contact: RD. 5-dichloro-N-(3-chloro-1-ethyl-1-
and raw agricultural commodities after 4. PP 7F8595. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2017– methyl-2-oxopropyl)-4-
harvest under 40 CFR 180.910. The 0530). Bayer CropScience LP2, T.W. methylbenzamide. Contact: RD.
petitioner believes no analytical method Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, 8. PP 7F8624. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–
is needed because it is not required for NC 27709, requests to establish a 0616). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
tolerance. Contact: RD. residues of the fungicide, 27709, requests to establish a tolerance
trifloxystrobin, in or on Flax, seed at 0.4 in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
New Tolerances for Non-Inerts ppm. Either gas chromatography with
1. PP 7E8584. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2017– fungicide, metrafenone, in or on
nitrogen-phosphorus detection, or
0505). Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. mushrooms at 0.5 ppm. The LC/MS/MS
liquid chromatography/mass
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle is used to measure and evaluate the
spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/
Park, NC 27709, requests to establish a chemical metrafenone (3-bromo-6-
MS/MS) are used to measure and
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for methoxy-2-methylphenyl)(2,3,4-
evaluate the chemical trifloxystrobin
residues of spiromesifen; 2-oxo-3-(2,4,6- trimethoxy-6-methylphenyl)methanone.
and the free form of its acid metabolite
trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3- Contact: RD.
CGA–321113 ((E,E)-methoxyimino-[2-[1-
en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate, and its (3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)- Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.
enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6- ethylideneaminooxymethyl]- Dated: January 16, 2018.
trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3- phenyl]acetic acid). Contact: RD. Delores Barber,
en-2-one calculated as the 5. PP 7F8596. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2017– Director, Information Technology and
stoichiometric equivalent of 0531). Bayer CropScience LP2, T.W. Resources Management Division, Office of
spiromesifen in or on the raw Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, Pesticide Programs.
agricultural commodities Coffee bean, NC 27709, requests to establish a [FR Doc. 2018–03989 Filed 2–26–18; 8:45 am]
green at 0.20 parts per million (ppm); tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Coffee bean, roasted at 0.20 ppm; and residues of the fungicide,
Coffee, instant at 0.20 ppm. prothioconazole, in or on Crop
Spiromesifen residues are quantified in Subgroup 20A (Rapeseed Subgroup) at
raw agricultural commodities by high 0.15 ppm. The LC/MS/MS analytical DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
pressure liquid chromatography/triple method is used to measure and evaluate
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
stage quadrupole mass spectrometry the chemical prothioconazole, 2-[2-(1-
Administration
(LC/MS/MS) using the stable chlorocylcopropyl)-3-(2-chlorophenyl)-
isotopically labeled analytes as internal 2-hydroxypropyl]-1,2-dihydro-3H-1,2,4-
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
standards. Contact: RD. triazole-3-thion, including its
2. PP 6F8533. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2017– metabolites and degradates, in or on the [Docket No. 171128999–8169–01]
0235). Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street commodities with tolerances.
NW, Suite 450 East, Washington, DC RIN 0648–XF872
Compliance with the tolerance levels
20005, requests to establish a tolerance specified is to be determined by Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the measuring only prothioconazole and its 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List
herbicide acetochlor in or on Alfalfa, metabolite prothioconazole-desthio, or Chinook Salmon in the Upper Klamath-
forage at 8 ppm, Alfalfa, hay at 20 ppm, a-(1-chlorocyclopropyl)-a-[(2- Trinity Rivers Basin as Threatened or
Cattle, fat at 0.02 ppm, Cattle, kidney at chlorophenyl)methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole- Endangered Under the Endangered
0.03 ppm, Cattle, meat at 0.02 ppm, 1-ethanol, calculated as parent in or on Species Act
Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney the commodity. Contact: RD.
at 0.02 ppm, Goat, fat at 0.02 ppm, Goat, 6. PP 7F8614. EPA–HQ–OPP–2017– AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
kidney at 0.03 ppm, Goat, meat at 0.02 0572. Makhteshim Agan of North Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:03 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_8449/page/1.svg)
![8414 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules
present new genetic evidence to suggest Therefore, in accordance with section information concerning the impacts of
the spring-run Chinook salmon 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and NMFS’ environmental variability and climate
populations in the UKTR Basin may implementing regulations (50 CFR change on survival, recruitment,
qualify as a separate ESU from the fall- 424.14(h)(2)), we will commence a distribution, and/or extinction risk.
run populations and request this new status review of the UKTR Chinook We are also requesting information on
ESU to be listed based on the threats salmon ESU. During our status review, areas that may qualify as critical habitat
identified above. Based on biological, we will first consider the request to for Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin.
genetic, and ecological information designate a new ESU to describe spring- Please identify: Physical and biological
compiled and reviewed as part of the run Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin features essential to the conservation of
status review for Chinook salmon in light of our ESU Policy (56 FR 58612; the species that may require special
(Myers et al., 1998), we included all November 20, 1991). If we determine management considerations; areas
spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon that the spring-run component qualifies occupied by the species containing
populations in the Klamath River Basin as a separate ESU, then we will evaluate those physical and biological features;
upstream from the confluence of the its status to determine whether it is in and unoccupied areas essential for
Klamath and Trinity rivers in the UKTR danger of extinction or likely to become conservation of the species (16 U.S.C.
Chinook salmon ESU (63 FR 11482; so within the foreseeable future 1533(a)(3)(A); 50 CFR 424.12).
March 9, 1998). In our 2012 not throughout all or a significant portion of We request that all information be
warranted decision (77 FR 19597; April its range. Otherwise, we will evaluate accompanied by: (1) Supporting
2, 2012), we reconfirmed the the status of the existing UKTR Chinook documentation such as maps,
configuration of the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU to determine if it warrants bibliographic references, or reprints of
salmon ESU. In both cases, we found listing. As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) pertinent publications; and (2) the
that spring-run and fall-run Chinook of the ESA, we will publish a finding as submitter’s name, address, and any
salmon populations in the UKTR Basin to whether listing an ESU as endangered association, institution, or business that
were genetically very similar and not or threatened is warranted. the person represents.
reproductively isolated from each other.
Information Solicited References Cited
The Petitioners contend the findings
from a recently published article on the To ensure that our status review is The complete citations for the
evolutionary basis of premature informed by the best available scientific references used in this document can be
migration in Pacific salmon (Prince et and commercial information, we are obtained by contacting NMFS (See FOR
al. 2017) indicate that spring-run opening a 60-day public comment FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or on
Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin period to solicit information on Chinook our web page at: www.westcoast.
should be considered a separate ESU, salmon in the UKTR Basin. We also fisheries.noaa.gov.
and therefore eligible to be listed as solicited information on Chinook
salmon in the UKTR Basin with our 90- Authority: The authority for this action is
threatened or endangered. Prince et al. the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
(2017) suggest that their results indicate day finding on the previous petition (76
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
that premature migration (e.g. spring- FR 20302; April 12, 2011). Therefore,
run Chinook salmon) arose from a single please do not re-submit information Dated: February 21, 2018.
evolutionary event within the species submitted in response to that previous Samuel D. Rauch, III,
and, if lost, are not likely to re-evolve finding. We request information from Deputy Assistant Administrator for
in time frames relevant to conservation the public, concerned governmental Regulatory Programs, National Marine
planning. Therefore, the Petitioners agencies, Native American tribes, the Fisheries Service.
contend that the new genetic scientific community, agricultural and [FR Doc. 2018–03906 Filed 2–26–18; 8:45 am]
information indicates that spring-run forestry groups, conservation groups, BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin fishing groups, industry, or any other
satisfy the criteria for a species to be interested parties concerning the current
considered an ESU because: (1) They are and/or historical status of Chinook DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
substantially reproductively isolated, salmon in the UKTR Basin. Specifically,
and (2) they represent an important we request information regarding: (1) National Oceanic and Atmospheric
component in the evolutionary legacy of Species abundance; (2) species Administration
the species. We have reviewed the new productivity; (3) species distribution or
genetic information and find that a population spatial structure; (4) patterns 50 CFR Part 300
reasonable person may conclude that of phenotypic, genotypic, and life
spring-run Chinook salmon in the UKTR history diversity; (5) habitat conditions [Docket No. 171026999–8049–01]
Basin would qualify as an ESU pursuant and associated limiting factors and
to our ESU Policy. threats; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to RIN 0648–BH36
protect and restore the species and their
Petition Finding habitats; (7) information on the Fisheries Off West Coast States;
After reviewing the information adequacy of existing regulatory Highly Migratory Fisheries;
contained in the petition, as well as mechanisms, whether protections are Amendment 4 to Fishery Management
information readily available in our being implemented, and whether they Plan for West Coast Highly Migratory
files, we conclude the petition presents are proving effective in conserving the Species Fisheries; Revisions to the
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
substantial scientific information species; (8) data concerning the status Biennial Management Cycle
indicating the petitioned actions to list and trends of identified limiting factors AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
as threatened or endangered the UKTR or threats; (9) information on targeted Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Chinook salmon ESU or, alternatively, harvest (commercial and recreational) Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
to create a new ESU to describe spring- and bycatch of the species; (10) other Commerce.
run Chinook salmon in the UKTR Basin new information, data, or corrections
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
and list the new ESU as threatened or including, but not limited to, taxonomic
comments.
endangered may be warranted. or nomenclatural changes; and (11)
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:03 Feb 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM 27FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_8449/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-27 01:14:48
Document Modified: 2018-02-27 01:14:48
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | 90-Day petition finding, request for information, and initiation of status review. | |
| Dates | Scientific and commercial information pertinent to the petitioned action must be received by April 30, 2018. | |
| Contact | Electronic copies of the petition and other materials are available on the NMFS West Coast Region website at www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov. Please direct other inquiries to Gary Rule, NMFS West Coast Region at [email protected], (503) 230-5424; or Maggie Miller, NMFS Office of Protected Resources at [email protected], (301) 427-8457. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 8410 | |
| RIN Number | 0648-XF87 | |
| CFR Citation | 50
CFR
223 50 CFR 224 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR