Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1997 / Notices 14889

[I.D. 030497D]

Pacific Coast Pinniped Interaction

Investigation and Report

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA), NMFS conducted an

investigation to determine whether

California sea lions and Pacific harbor

seals are having a significant negative

impact on the recovery of certain

salmonid stocks or on the coastal

ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and

California. After completion of the

report of the scientific investigation

(scientific report), NMFS prepared a

draft report to Congress to submit

recommendations, resulting from

discussions with the Pacific States

Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)

to address issues and problems

identified in the scientific report. The

scientific report is complete and

available for public information, and the

draft report to Congress is available for

public review and comment (see

ADDRESSES).

DATES: Comments on the draft report to

Congress must be submitted on or before

June 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the scientific

report and the draft report to Congress

are available from, and written

comments should be sent to, William

Stelle, Jr., Administrator, NMFS,

Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point

Way, NE., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA

98115, Attn: West Coast Pinniped

Report, or Michael Payne, Chief, Marine

Mammal Division, Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910,

Attn: West Coast Pinniped Report.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe

Scordino (206) 526–6143, or Tom Eagle

(301) 713–2322.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The MMPA directs the Secretary of

Commerce (Secretary) to conduct a

scientific investigation to determine if

California sea lions and Pacific harbor

seals (a) are having a significant

negative impact on the recovery of

salmonid fishery stocks that have been

listed as endangered species or

threatened species under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA), or that

the Secretary finds are approaching

endangered or threatened status; or (b)

are having broader impacts on the

coastal ecosystems of Washington,

Oregon, and California. After

completion of the investigation, NMFS

on the behalf of the Secretary is directed

to enter into discussions with the

PSMFC on behalf of Washington,

Oregon, and California, to address any

issues or problems identified as a result

of the scientific investigation, and to

develop recommendations to address

such issues or problems. The

recommendations from these

discussions, along with the scientific

report, are to be made available to the

public for review and comment for a

period of 90 days, and then submitted

to Congress.

NMFS established a Working Group

to investigate the matters directed by

Congress. Because NMFS did not have

available resources and there was

insufficient time to conduct rigorous

field investigations on the issues

identified by Congress within the

specified 1-year timeframe, the

investigation focused on a review of

information from past field studies. The

Working Group consisted of NMFS and

state biologists with expertise in

salmonids, marine mammals, and the

interactions between them. The

Working Group compiled and reviewed

all available information on the status

and trends of California sea lions,

Pacific harbor seals, and the seven

species of salmonids found in

Washington, Oregon, and California.

Members also conducted several

additional studies to augment existing

information. The Working Group

produced the scientific report,

‘‘Investigation of Scientific Information

on Impacts of California Sea Lions and

Pacific Harbor Seals on Salmonids and

on the Coastal Ecosystems of

Washington, Oregon and California,’’

which has been submitted for

publication as a NOAA technical

memorandum.

In June 1996, NMFS began

discussions with PSMFC and

representatives of Washington, Oregon,

and California. Over the course of four

meetings and numerous conference calls

during the last 8 months, two issues

were identified from the scientific

investigation, and four

recommendations were developed.

Issues

The two issues on pinniped impacts

on salmonids and west coast ecosystems

described in the Report are:

1. California sea lion and Pacific

harbor seal populations on the West

Coast are increasing while many

salmonid populations are decreasing.

Salmonid populations that are

depressed and declining, especially

those that are listed or proposed to be

listed under the ESA, can be negatively

impacted by expanding pinniped

populations and attendant predation.

2. Increasing California sea lion and

Pacific harbor seal populations and their

expanding distribution are negatively

impacting commercial and recreational

fisheries, damaging private property,

and posing threats to public safety.

Recommendations

The four recommendations in the

draft report to Congress are:

1. Implement site-specific

management for California sea lions

and Pacific harbor seals. Establish a

framework that would allow state and

Federal resource management agencies

to immediately address conflicts

involving California sea lions and

Pacific harbor seals. Any lethal takings

would have to be within the Potential

Biological Removal levels established by

NMFS for all human causes of mortality.

The three components of the

framework would be: (a) In situations

where California sea lions or Pacific

harbor seals are preying on salmonids

that are listed or proposed for listing

under the ESA, immediate use of lethal

removal by state or Federal resource

agency officials would be authorized; (b)

in situations where California sea lions

or Pacific harbor seals are preying on

salmonid populations of concern to the

state or are impeding passage of these

populations during migration as adults

or smolts, lethal takes by state or

Federal resource agency officials would

be authorized if (i) non-lethal deterrence

methods are underway and are not fully

effective, or (ii) non-lethal methods are

not feasible in the particular situation or

have proven ineffective in the past; and,

(c) in situations where California sea

lions or Pacific harbor seals conflict

with humans, such as at fishery sites

and marinas, lethal removal by state or

Federal resource agency officials would

be authorized as a last resort when an

individual pinniped fails to respond to

repeated deterrence attempts, or when

repeated deterrence attempts do not

affect the behavior of an individual

pinniped over the long-term.

2. Develop safe, effective non-lethal

deterrents. In order to provide an array

of options broader than lethal removal

to resolve West Coast pinniped

problems, there is a pressing need for

research on the development and

evaluation of deterrent devices and

further exploration of other non-lethal

removal measures. Potential options

need to be evaluated in a concerted,

adequately funded effort to address this

issue. Research and development of
14890 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1997 / Notices

1Category 666: all HTS numbers except

6303.92.2000 (Category 666–C).

2Category 666–C: only HTS number

6303.92.2000.

pinniped deterrence methods should be

a research priority for addressing

expanding pinniped populations on the

West Coast.

3. Selectively reinstate authority for

the intentional lethal taking of

California sea lions and Pacific harbor

seals by commercial fishermen to

protect gear and catch. Prior to the 1994

Amendments to the MMPA, commercial

fishermen were allowed to kill certain

pinnipeds as a last resort in order to

protect their gear or catch. Although the

1992 NMFS legislative proposal

contained provisions to continue such

authority, it was not included in the

1994 Amendments to the MMPA. A

limited authorization, based on

demonstrated need, should be provided

to certain commercial fishermen at

specified sites to use lethal means, as a

last resort, to protect their gear and

catch from depredation by California sea

lions and Pacific harbor seals until such

time that effective non-lethal methods

are developed for their specific

situation.

4. Information needs. An array of

additional information is needed to

better evaluate and monitor California

sea lion and Pacific harbor seal impacts

on salmonids and other components of

the West Coast ecosystems. Details of

such studies are described in the draft

report to Congress.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1389(f)

Dated: March 24, 1997.

Hilda Diaz-Soltero,

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–7885 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Amendment of Export Visa

Requirements for Certain Man-Made

Fiber Products Produced or

Manufactured in the People’s Republic

of China

March 24, 1997.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs amending

visa requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Aldrich, International Trade

Specialist, Office of Textiles and

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202) 482–4212.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March

3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1854).

Effective on April 1, 1997, for goods

produced or manufactured in China and

exported on and after April 1, 1997, a

part-category visa will be required for

textile products in Category 666–C. For

textile products in Category 666, other

than 666–C, a 666 visa will be required.

During the period April 1, 1997 through

April 30, 1997, U.S. Customs Service

will accept either the new or the old

visa. Goods exported on and after May

1, 1997 shall be denied entry if not

visaed as 666 (other than 666–C) or 666–

C.

See 60 FR 22567, published on May

8, 1995.

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

March 24, 1997.

Commissioner of Customs,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.

Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directive

issued to you on May 3, 1995, by the

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements. That directive

establishes an export visa arrangement for

certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk

blend, and other vegetable fiber textiles and

textile products, produced or manufactured

in the People’s Republic of China.

Effective on April 1, 1997, goods produced

or manufactured in China and exported on

and after April 1, 1997, in Category 666 shall

require a 666 (other than 666–C) 1 or 666–C2

visa. During the period April 1, 1997 through

April 30, 1997, you are directed to accept

either the new or old visa. Goods exported

on and after May 1, 1997 shall be denied

entry if not visaed as 666 (other than 666–

C) or 666–C.

Shipments entered or withdrawn from

warehouse according to this directive which

are not accompanied by an appropriate

export visa shall be denied entry and a new

visa must be obtained.

The Committee for the Implementation of

Textile Agreements has determined that this

action falls within the foreign affairs

exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 97–7946 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

Cost Comparison Studies

The Air Force is conducting the

following cost comparisons in

accordance with OMB Circular A–76,

Performance of Commercial Activities.

Installation State USAF Project Title

Maxwell AFB .......................................................... AL ......................... General Library.

Maxwell AFB .......................................................... AL ......................... Grounds Maintenance.

Clear ....................................................................... AK ......................... Power Production.

Eielson AFB ............................................................ AK ......................... Miscellaneous Services.

Eielson AFB ............................................................ AK ......................... Admin Telephone PBX.

Elmendorf AFB ....................................................... AK ......................... Power Production.

Elmendorf AFB ....................................................... AK ......................... Military Family Housing Management.

Edwards AFB ......................................................... CA ......................... Base Supply.

Los Angeles AFS ................................................... CA ......................... Communication Functions.

Los Angeles AFS ................................................... CA ......................... Publications Distribution Office.

Los Angeles AFS ................................................... CA ......................... Education Services.

March AFB ............................................................. CA ......................... Airfield Operations & Weather.