43974 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

submission. The diskette should be

accompanied by a cover letter.

73. Written comments by the public

must be submitted at the same time as

those of the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or

modified information collections on or

before 60 days after publication of the

NPRM in the Federal Register. In

addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the

Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725–17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

XII. Ordering Clauses

74. It is ordered that pursuant to

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 224, 303 and 403 of

the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),

224, 303 and 403, notice is hereby given

of the proposals described in this Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking.

75. It is further ordered that the

Secretary shall send a copy of this

NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 603 (2).

76. For additional information

regarding this proceeding, contact Larry

Walke, Policy and Rules Division, Cable

Services Bureau (202) 418–7200.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

Cable television.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Note: This attachment will not be

published in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Attachment—Pole Attachment

Formulas (Modified as Proposed)

Telecommunications Companies:

Maximum Rate = (Space Occupied by

Attachment × Carrying Charge Rate

× Net Pole Investment × .95) ÷ Total

# of Poles

Total Carrying Charge Rate =

Administrative + Maintenance +

Depreciation + Taxes + Return

Administrative Carrying Charge Rate =

(Total Administrative and General

(Accounts 6710+6720 + 6110+6120

+ 6534+6535)) ÷ (Gross Plant

Investment ¥ Accum. Depreciation,

Account 3100 ¥ Accum. Deferred

Taxes, Plant)

Maintenance Carrying Charge Rate =

(Account 6411 ¥ Rental Expense,

Poles) ÷ Net Pole Investment

Depreciation Carrying Charge Rate =

Depreciation Rate, Poles

Tax Carrying Charge Rate = Operating

Taxes, Account 7200 ÷ (Gross Plant

Investment ¥ Accum. Depreciation,

Account 3100 ¥ Accum. Deferred

Taxes, Plant)

Return Carrying Charge Rate =

Applicable Rate of Return

Space Occupied by Attachment = 1 foot

Total Usable Space = 13.5 feet (Subject

to Rebuttal)

Gross Plan Investment = Account 2001

Gross Pole Investment = Account 2411

Net Pole Investment = Account 2411 ¥

Accum. Depreciation, Poles ¥

Accum. Deferred Income Taxes,

Poles

[FR Doc. 97–21818 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 227

[Docket No. 960730210–7194–03; I.D.

012595A]

RIN 0648–XX65

Endangered and Threatened Species:

Notice of Partial 6-Month Extension on

the Final Listing Determination for

Several Evolutionarily Significant Units

(ESUs) of West Coast Steelhead

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; partial extension

of final determination.

SUMMARY: NMFS has made final listing

determinations for five Evolutionarily

Significant Units (ESUs) of west coast

steelhead under the Endangered Species

Act (ESA). The ESUs listed as

threatened or endangered species are

the Upper Columbia River (endangered),

Snake River Basin (threatened), Central

California Coast (threatened), SouthCentral California Coast (threatened)

and Southern California (endangered).

NMFS has also determined that

substantial scientific disagreement

exists regarding the sufficiency and

accuracy of data relevant to listing five

other west coast steelhead ESUs.

Specifically, NMFS has determined that

substantial scientific disagreements

exist regarding the sufficiency and

accuracy of data relevant to final listing

determinations for the Lower Columbia

River, Oregon Coast, Klamath

Mountains Province, Northern

California, and California’s Central

Valley ESUs. These scientific

disagreements concern the data needed

to determine the status of these species,

the threats to their continued existence,

and the geographic boundaries of

certain ESUs. Consequently, NMFS

extends the deadline for a final listing

determination for these ESUs for 6

months to solicit, collect, and analyze

additional information from NMFS

scientists, co-management scientists,

and scientific experts on this species

enabling NMFS to make the final listing

determination based on the best

available data.

Several efforts are underway that may

resolve scientific disagreement

regarding the sufficiency and accuracy

of data relevant to these listings. NMFS

has undertaken an intensive effort to

analyze data received during and after

the comment period on the proposed

ESUs from the States of Washington,

Oregon, and California, as well as from

peer reviewers. This work will include

evaluating new population models,

analyzing population abundance trends

where new data are available, and

examining new genetic data relative to

the relationship between winter and

summer steelhead and between

hatchery and wild fish. Results of these

analyses are anticipated within the next

two to three months. NMFS will also

receive and analyze additional genetic

samples for California’s Central Valley

ESU as well as rigorously evaluate

ecological characteristics to determine if

further subdivision of this ESU is

warranted.

During the 90-day comment period

following the published proposed

listings rule on August 9, 1996, NMFS

held sixteen public hearings at which

testimony was heard from 188

commenters. Additionally, NMFS

received and continues to analyze 939

written comments.

DATES: The new deadline for final action

on the deferred ESUs of west coast

steelhead is February 9, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Protected Resources

Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525

NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland,

OR 97232–2737.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Garth Griffin, 503–231–2005, Craig

Wingert, 310–980–4021, or Joe Blum,

301–713–1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Historically, steelhead likely

inhabited most coastal streams in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43975

Washington, Oregon, and California as

well as many inland streams in these

states and Idaho. However, during this

century, over 23 indigenous, naturallyreproducing stocks of steelhead are

believed to have been extirpated, and

many more are thought to be in decline

in numerous coastal and inland streams

in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California (Nehlsen et al., 1991). Fortythree stocks of steelhead have been

identified as being at moderate or high

risk of extinction (Nehlsen et al. 1991).

The history of ESA listing petitions

received regarding west coast steelhead

is summarized in the proposed listings

rule published on August 9, 1996 (61 FR

41541). The most comprehensive

petition was submitted by Oregon

Natural Resources Council and 15 copetitioners on February 16, 1994. In

response to this petition, NMFS

collected and assessed the best available

scientific and commercial data,

including technical information from

the Pacific Salmon Biological Technical

Committee (PSBTC) and interested

parties in Washington, Oregon, Idaho,

and California. The PSBTC consisted

primarily of scientists from Federal,

state, and local resource agencies,

Indian tribes, industries, universities,

professional societies, and public

interest groups possessing technical

expertise relevant to steelhead and their

habitats. A total of seven PSBTC

meetings were held in the states of

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California during the course of the west

coast steelhead status review. NMFS

also established a Biological Review

Team (BRT) that conducted a coastwide

status review for west coast steelhead

(Busby et al., 1996). The BRT was

composed of staff from NMFS’

Northwest Fisheries Science Center and

Southwest Regional Office, as well as a

representative of the National Biological

Survey.

Based on the results of the BRT

report, and after considering other

information and existing conservation

measures, NMFS published a proposed

listing determination (61 FR 41541,

August 9, 1996) that identified 15 ESUs

of steelhead in the States of Washington,

Oregon, Idaho, and California. Ten of

these ESUs were proposed for listing as

threatened or endangered species, four

were found not warranted for listing,

and one was identified as a candidate

for listing under the ESA.

Finding

Within 1 year from the date of a

proposed listing, section 4(b)(6) of the

ESA requires NMFS to take one of three

actions: (1) Finalize the proposed

listing; (2) withdraw the proposed

listing; or (3) extend the 1-year period

for not more than 6 months pursuant to

section 4(b)(6)(B)(i).

Section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA

authorizes NMFS to extend the deadline

for a final listing determination for not

more than 6 months for the purpose of

soliciting additional data. NMFS’ ESA

implementing regulations condition

such an extension on finding

‘‘substantial disagreement among

scientists knowledgeable about the

species concerned regarding the

sufficiency or accuracy of the available

data relevant to the determination.’’ (50

CFR 424.17(a)(1)(iv)).

NMFS has now analyzed new

information and public comment

received in response to the August 9,

1996, proposed rule. NMFS’ BRT has

likewise analyzed this new information

and has updated its conclusions

accordingly (BRT Report memo from M.

Schiewe to W. Stelle and W. Hogarth,

July 7, 1997). Copies of the BRT’s

updated Status Review are available

upon request (see ADDRESSEES).

Based on this analysis, NMFS has

made final determinations for five ESUs

of west coast steelhead. The ESUs listed

as threatened or endangered are the

Upper Columbia River (endangered),

Snake River Basin (threatened), Central

California Coast (threatened), SouthCentral California Coast (threatened)

and Southern California (endangered).

For NMFS’ determination on the listing

of five ESUs of west coast steelhead as

threatened or endangered species, see

the west coast steelhead ESU listing

notice in the Rules and Regulations

section of this Federal Register.

As a result of comments received in

response to the August 9, 1996,

proposal, NMFS has determined that

substantial scientific disagreements

exist regarding the sufficiency and

accuracy of data relevant to final listing

determinations for the Lower Columbia

River, Oregon Coast, Klamath

Mountains Province, Northern

California, and California’s Central

Valley ESUs (BRT Report memo from M.

Schiewe to W. Stelle and W. Hogarth,

July 18, 1997). These scientific

disagreements concern the data needed

to determine the status of these species,

the threats to their continued existence,

and the geographic range of steelhead

within certain ESUs. Therefore, NMFS

extends the final listing determination

deadline for the Lower Columbia River,

Oregon Coast, Klamath Mountains

Province, Northern California, and

California’s Central Valley ESUs for 6

months to solicit, collect, and analyze

additional data. Several efforts are

underway that may resolve scientific

disagreement regarding the sufficiency

and accuracy of data relevant to these

ESUs. These efforts include: 1) Analysis

of samples being collected this summer

by the California Department of Fish

and Game (CDFG) of the Central Valley

ESU of steelhead to determine genetic

makeup; and 2) NMFS review of the

new Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife (ODFW) risk analysis model for

the Lower Columbia River, Central

Oregon Coast, Klamath Mountain

Province, and North California Coastal

ESUs as well as outside peer review of

those same models. A more detailed

discussion of these efforts is provided

below under ‘‘Prospects for Resolving

Existing Disagreements.’’

Points of Substantial Scientific

Disagreement

Some peer reviewers, in addition to

some knowledgeable scientists from

state fish and wildlife agencies, tribes,

and the public, dispute the sufficiency

and accuracy of data employed by

NMFS in its proposed listing of west

coast steelhead ESUs in California,

Oregon, and Washington. The primary

areas of dispute concern data relevant

to: risk assessment, in particular the

types of data used to determine

abundance as well as the impacts of

artificial production; and the

configuration of certain ESU

boundaries, including the relationship

of summer and winter steelhead in the

same ESUs. The following sections

briefly discuss the types of data subject

to substantial scientific disagreement.

Risk Assessment

Risk assessment involves the

collection and analysis of data on the

status of west coast steelhead and the

threats presented by various human

activities and natural occurrences. In its

Factors for Decline report for west coast

steelhead, NMFS identified the

principal threats to steelhead as past

and present hatchery practices, habitat

loss, adverse ocean conditions, habitat

blockages, and habitat fragmentation

(NMFS, 1996).

With respect to abundance data,

several commenters argued that NMFS

lacked sufficient and accurate data to

estimate current steelhead abundance.

These commenters argued that NMFS

failed to accurately estimate the number

and effects of hatchery fish spawning in

the wild, and that NMFS relied too

heavily on the use of sport catch data.

These commenters argued that this

analysis upwardly biased NMFS

assessment of the risks facing steelhead

in those instances.

For example, in the Lower Columbia

River ESU, the State of Oregon disagrees

with NMFS’ assessment of risks facing
43976 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

steelhead in this ESU. ODFW argued

that although steelhead populations in

this ESU are depressed, their modeling

suggests that recent actions protective of

steelhead, together with re-analysis of

updated data argue against NMFS’

proposed determination. Because it

received ODFW’s information only in

June 1997, NMFS has not fully

evaluated the model or validated its

results in order to assess overall

abundance in this ESU shared by

Oregon and Washington.

In the Oregon Coast ESU and the

Oregon portion of the Klamath

Mountains Province ESU, substantial

scientific disagreement exists regarding

the sufficiency of data used to assess the

risks faced by steelhead. Specifically,

ODFW criticized NMFS’ assessment of

these ESUs for relying on insufficient

data (Chilcote, June 1997). ODFW

argued that NMFS did not consider

accurate data sets because NMFS was

overly-reliant on sport catch data.

ODFW reasoned that sport catch data,

although the only complete data

available, are inaccurate because of

biases in its recording and because most

fishing effort focuses on hatchery

steelhead runs, thus reflecting poor wild

steelhead abundance. ODFW also

argued that NMFS analyzed a time

series that was not inclusive of all the

available data for these coastal steelhead

populations. ODFW argued that NMFS’

risk analysis, based on the available data

at the time of the 1995 status review,

was biased toward finding a relatively

higher risk for these coastal Oregon

ESUs, thus overstating the depressed

condition of Oregon coastal steelhead

and leading NMFS to incorrectly

conclude that the proposed listing is

warranted.

ODFW developed two different

population models in an attempt to

define the risk of extinction faced by

steelhead in the Oregon ESUs. The first

of these models applies spawner and

recruitment data to determine

population abundance in the context of

habitat capacity. The second modeling

effort attempts to assess the risk of

extinction for those populations where

sufficient data exist to estimate

spawner-recruitment relationships

(Chilcote, June 1997). To date, the

models have produced status

assessments that are inconsistent with

those made by NMFS for the Lower

Columbia River, Oregon Coast and

Oregon portion of the Klamath

Mountains Province ESUs. The results

of these models could have direct

bearing on NMFS’ final listing

determinations. Having received these

models in June 1997, NMFS has not had

time to fully evaluate them or their

usefulness.

ODFW also contended that NMFS

overstated the adverse effects of

hatchery fish by not considering time

series data that reflect recent reductions

in hatchery production. ODFW argued

that, by not using more updated data

sets, NMFS based its proposed listing

determinations in the Lower Columbia

River, Oregon Coast and Oregon

portions of the Klamath Mountains

Province ESUs on insufficient data.

Since the data ODFW used to estimate

the proportion of hatchery steelhead in

the ESUs is new, NMFS needs more

time to evaluate the merits of this

information.

In the Northern California Coast ESU,

comments from a peer reviewer

presented new information on the

relationship between hatchery and wild

steelhead stocks in California, as well as

on the genetic differences between

summer and winter steelhead in the Eel

River, California. This new information

may affect NMFS’ determination and

has not yet been fully analyzed.

ESU Boundary Definitions

Two points of scientific disagreement

may affect ESU boundaries. One area of

disagreement concerns NMFS’s

treatment of diverse life history forms

within the individual ESUs, specifically

the relationship between winter and

summer steelhead in the same river

basins. Comments focused on NMFS’s

use of primarily genetic data in making

its determination to combine winter and

summer steelhead into a single ESU.

The commenters argued that not all

relevant life history characteristics are

apparent through an analysis of discrete

genetic markers. Another point of

disagreement concerns whether there is

significant reproductive isolation

between winter and summer steelhead

to warrant their designation as separate

ESUs. Resolving these disagreements

may affect ESU boundaries. NMFS has

recently obtained new samples of winter

and summer steelhead from ODFW, and

will be collecting additional information

over the next few months.

The scientific disagreement

concerning California’s Central Valley

ESU is of a similar nature.

Disagreements have arisen concerning

the boundaries of the ESU, and whether

the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers

contain distinct populations of

steelhead. NMFS expects to complete its

analysis of new genetic samples of

steelhead from California’s Central

Valley received from CDFG so that it

can address questions concerning ESU

configurations within the Central

Valley. In combination with the genetic

data, NMFS will conduct a more

rigorous evaluation of habitat and

ecological characteristics throughout the

ESU to determine if a finer-scale

subdivision of California’s Central

Valley ESU is warranted.

Prospects for Resolving Existing

Disagreements

Several efforts are underway that may

resolve scientific disagreement

regarding the sufficiency and accuracy

of data relevant to these listings. NMFS

has undertaken an intensive effort to

analyze the recently received data on

the proposed ESUs from the States of

Washington, Oregon, and California, as

well as from peer reviewers. This work

will include evaluating the ODFW

models, analyzing population

abundance trends where new data are

available, and examining new genetic

data relative to the relationship between

winter and summer steelhead and

between hatchery and wild fish.

For California’s Central Valley ESU,

NMFS will receive and analyze

additional genetic samples as well as

rigorously evaluate ecological

characteristics to determine if further

subdivision of this ESU is warranted.

Determination

The scientific disagreements about

data and analysis discussed above are

substantial and may alter NMFS’

assessment of the status of the Lower

Columbia River, Oregon Coast, Klamath

Mountains Province, Northern

California Coast, and California’s

Central Valley steelhead ESUs. In light

of these disagreements and the fact that

more data are forthcoming on risk

assessment and ESU boundaries, NMFS

extends the final determination

deadline for steelhead in the Lower

Columbia River, Oregon Coast, Klamath

Mountains Province, Northern

California Coast, and California’s

Central Valley ESUs for 6 months, until

February 9, 1998. During this period,

NMFS will collect and analyze new

information aimed at resolving these

disagreements. New information or

analyses may indicate that changing the

proposed status of one or more of these

ESUs of west coast steelhead are

warranted, and NMFS will either

finalize, withdraw, or modify the

proposed rule accordingly.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

Dated: August 11, 1997.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–21660 Filed 8–13–97; 9:14 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F