30212 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules

commerce in the course of a commercial

activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate

or foreign commerce, or remove and

reduce the cactus to possession from

areas under Federal jurisdiction. In

addition, for plants listed as

endangered, the Act prohibits the

malicious damage or destruction on

areas under Federal jurisdiction and the

removal, cutting, digging up, or

damaging or destroying of such plants

in knowing violation of any State law or

regulation, including State criminal

trespass law. If Lloyd’s hedgehog cactus

is removed from the List of Endangered

and Threatened Plants, these

prohibitions would no longer apply.

If Lloyd’s hedgehog cactus is delisted,

the requirements under section 7 of the

Act would no longer apply. Federal

agencies would not be required to

consult with the Service on their actions

that may affect Lloyd’s hedgehog cactus.

The 1988 amendments to the Act

require that all species delisted due to

recovery be monitored for at least 5

years following delisting. Lloyd’s

hedgehog cactus is being proposed for

delisting because the taxonomic

interpretation that it is a species has

been found to be incorrect; Lloyd’s

hedgehog cactus is an unstable hybrid

rather than a distinct taxon. Therefore,

no monitoring period following

delisting is required.

Some protection for Lloyd’s hedgehog

cactus may remain in place. All cacti,

including hybrids, are on Appendix II of

CITES. CITES regulates international

trade of cacti, but does not regulate

trade within the United States or

prevent habitat destruction.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final

action resulting from this proposal will

be as accurate and as effective as

possible. Therefore, comments or

suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

proposed rule are hereby solicited.

Comments particularly are sought

concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or

other relevant data concerning the

taxonomic status or threats (or lack

thereof) to this apparent hybrid;

(2) The location and characteristics of

any additional populations not

considered in previous work that might

have bearing on the current taxonomic

interpretation; and

(3) Additional information concerning

range, distribution, and population

sizes, particularly if it would assist in

the evaluation of the accuracy of the

current taxonomic interpretation.

The Service will take into

consideration the comments and any

additional information received and

such communications may lead to a

final regulation that differs from this

proposal.

The Endangered Species Act provides

for one or more public hearings on this

proposal, if requested. Requests must be

received within 45 days of the date of

publication of the proposal in the

Federal Register. Such requests must be

made in writing and addressed to Field

Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has

determined that Environmental

Assessments and Environmental Impact

Statements, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, need not be

prepared in connection with regulations

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. A notice outlining the

Service’s reasons for this determination

was published in the Federal Register

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

Benson, L. 1982. The cacti of the United

States and Canada. Stanford University

Press, Stanford, California. 1044 pp.

Britton, N.L. and J.N. Rose. 1937. The

Cactaceae. Vol. III. 258:37–38.

Correll, D.S. and M.C. Johnston. 1979.

Manual of the vascular plants of Texas.

The University of Texas at Dallas,

Richardson, Texas. 1881 pp.

Janssen, G.K. 1993. Project no. 35: assessment

and management plan development for

listed and category plants on Texas

Department of Highways and Public

Transportation rights-of-ways. Texas Parks

and Wildlife Department, Section 6 Grant

Performance Report.

Poole, J.M. and D.H. Riskind. 1987.

Endangered, threatened, or protected

native plants of Texas. Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Poole, J.M. and A.D. Zimmerman. 1985.

Endangered species information system

species record, Echinocereus lloydii. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of

Endangered Species, Washington, D.C.

Powell, A.M., A.D. Zimmerman, and R.A.

Hilsenbeck. 1991. Experimental

documentation of natural hybridization in

Cactaceae: origin of Lloyd’s hedgehog

cactus, Echinocereus X lloydii. Plant

Systematics and Evolution 178:107–122.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985.

Minutes of the Joint Meeting, Region 2

Plant Recovery Teams, January 10–11,

1985. Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Weniger, D. 1970. Cacti of the southwest.

University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

249 pp.

Weniger, D. 1979. Status report on

Echinocereus lloydii. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New

Mexico. 11 pp.

Zimmerman, A.D. 1992. Systematics of

Echinocereus X roetteri (Cactaceae),

including Lloyd’s hedgehog-cactus.

Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants;

Proceedings of the Southwestern Rare and

Endangered Plant Conference. Forestry and

Resources Conservation Division of the

New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural

Resources Department. Miscellaneous

Publication 2:270–288.

Authors

The primary authors of this document

are Elizabeth Materna and Kathryn

Kennedy, Ecological Services Austin

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, and

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby

proposes to amend part 17, subchapter

B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

§ 17.12 [Amended]

2. Section 17.12(h) is amended by

removing the entry for ‘‘Echinocereus

lloydii’’ under ‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS’’

from the List of Endangered and

Threatened Plants.

Dated: May 28, 1996.

John G. Rogers,

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 96–15124 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 216

[Docket No. 960318084–6084–01; I.D.

031396E]

RIN 0648–AG55

Taking and Importing Marine

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals

Incidental to Naval Activities

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of a petition for

regulations, and an application for a
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules 30213

small take exemption; request for

comment and information.

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request

from the U.S. Navy for a small take of

marine mammals incidental to shock

testing the USS SEAWOLF submarine in

the offshore waters of the U.S. Atlantic

coast in 1997. As a result of that request,

NMFS is considering whether to

propose regulations that would

authorize the incidental taking of a

small number of marine mammals. In

order to implement regulations and

issue an authorization, NMFS must

determine that these takings will have a

negligible impact on the affected species

and stocks of marine mammals. NMFS

invites comment on the application and

suggestions on the content of the

regulations.

DATES: Comments and information must

be postmarked no later than July 15,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Chief, Marine Mammal

Division, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910–3226. A copy of the application

may be obtained by writing to the above

address, telephoning the person below

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT)

or by leaving a voice mail request at

(301) 713–4060.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Hollingshead (301) 713–

2055.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361

et seq.) (MMPA) directs the Secretary of

Commerce to allow, upon request, the

incidental, but not intentional taking of

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who

engage in a specified activity (other than

commercial fishing) within a specified

geographical region if certain findings

are made and regulations are issued.

Permission may be granted for periods

of 5 years or less if the Secretary finds

that the taking will have a negligible

impact on the species or stock(s), will

not have an unmitigable adverse impact

on the availability of the species or

stock(s) for subsistence uses, and

regulations are prescribed setting forth

the permissible methods of taking and

the requirements pertaining to the

monitoring and reporting of such taking.

Summary of Request

On June 7, 1996, NMFS received an

application for an incidental, small take

exemption under section 101(a)(5)(A) of

the MMPA from the U.S. Navy to take

marine mammals incidental to shock

testing the USS SEAWOLF submarine

off the U.S. Atlantic coast. The USS

SEAWOLF is the first of a new class of

submarines being acquired by the Navy.

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2366, each

new class of ships constructed for the

Navy cannot proceed beyond initial

production until realistic survivability

testing of the system is completed.

Realistic survivability testing means

testing for the vulnerability of the

system in combat by firing munitions

likely to be encountered in combat. This

testing and assessment is commonly

referred to as ‘‘Live Fire Test &

Evaluation (LFT&E).’’ Because realistic

testing by detonating torpedoes or mines

against a ship’s hull could result in the

loss of a multi-billion dollar Navy asset,

the Navy has established an LFT&E

program consisting of computer

modeling, component and surrogate

testing, and shock testing the entire

ship. Together, these components

complete the survivability testing as

required by 10 U.S.C. 2366.

The shock test component of LFT&E

is a series of underwater detonations

that propagate a shock wave through a

ship’s hull under deliberate and

controlled conditions. Shock tests

simulate near misses from underwater

explosions similar to those encountered

in combat. Shock testing verifies the

accuracy of design specifications for

shock testing ships and systems,

uncovers weaknesses in shock sensitive

components that may compromise the

performance of vital systems, and

provides a basis for correcting

deficiencies and upgrading ship and

component design specifications. While

computer modeling and laboratory

testing provide useful information, they

cannot substitute for shock testing

under realistic, offshore conditions. To

minimize cost and risk to personnel, the

first ship in each new class is shock

tested and improvements are applied to

later ships of the class.

The Navy proposes to shock test the

USS SEAWOLF by detonating a single

4,536–kg (10,000–lb) explosive charge

near the submarine once per week over

a 5-week period between April 1 and

September 30, 1997. (If the Mayport FL

site is selected, the shock tests would be

conducted between May 1 and

September 30, 1997 in order to

minimize risk to sea turtles).

Detonations would occur 30 m (100 ft)

below the ocean surface in a water

depth of 152 m (500 ft). The USS

SEAWOLF would be underway at a

depth of 20 m (65 ft) at the time of the

test. For each test, the submarine would

move closer to the explosive so the

submarine would experience a more

severe shock.

As part of a separate review under the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), two sites are being considered

by the Navy for the USS SEAWOLF

shock test effort. The Mayport site is

located on the continental shelf of

Georgia and northeast Florida and the

Norfolk site is located on the

continental shelf offshore of Virginia

and North Carolina.

Potential impacts to the several

marine mammal species known to occur

in these areas from shock testing

include both lethal and non-lethal

injury, as well as harassment. Death or

injury may occur as a result of the

explosive blast, and harassment may

occur as a result of non-injurious

physiological responses to the

explosion-generated shockwave and its

acoustic signature. The Navy believes it

is very unlikely that injury will occur

from exposure to the chemical byproducts released into the surface

waters, and no permanent alteration of

marine mammal habitat would occur.

While the Navy does not anticipate any

lethal takes would result from these

detonations, calculations indicate that

the Mayport site has the potential to

result in one lethal take, 5 injurious

takes, and 570 harassment takes, while

the Norfolk site has the potential to

result in 8 lethal takes, 38 injurious

takes, and 4,819 harassment takes.

Because of the potential impact to

marine mammals, the Navy has

requested NMFS to promulgate

regulations and issue a letter of

authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A)

of the MMPA that would authorize the

incidental taking.

The Navy’s proposed action includes

mitigation that would minimize risk to

marine mammals and sea turtles. The

Navy would: (1) Through pre-detonation

aerial surveys, select a test area with the

lowest possible number of marine

mammals and turtles; (2) monitor the

area visually (aerial and shipboard

monitoring) and acoustically before

each test and postpone detonation if any

marine mammal or sea turtle is detected

within a safety zone of 3.7 km (2 nmi);

and (3) monitor the area after each test

to find and treat any injured animals. If

post-detonation monitoring shows that

marine mammals or sea turtles were

killed or injured as a result of the test,

testing would be halted until procedures

for subsequent detonations could be

reviewed and changed as necessary.

NEPA

The Navy has released a draft

environmental impact statement under

NEPA for public review and comment

on this action. NMFS is a cooperating

agency as defined by the Council on
30214 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1501.6).

For information on the availability of

that document, please refer to the

appropriate notice elsewhere in this

issue of the Federal Register.

Information Solicited

NMFS requests interested persons to

submit comments, information, and

suggestions concerning the request and

the structure and content of regulations

to allow the taking. NMFS will consider

this information in determining the

appropriate action to take in response to

this request. If NMFS proposes

regulations to allow this take, a rule will

be published in the Federal Register

and interested parties will be given

ample time and opportunity to

comment.

Dated: June 7, 1996.

Patricia A. Montanio,

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 96–14935 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

50 CFR Part 285

[I.D. 112995B]

Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory

Committee on Tuna Management in the

Mid-Atlantic

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent; update.

SUMMARY: In February 1996, NMFS

announced that Commerce was

considering establishing a new advisory

committee under the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (FACA) to negotiate

certain issues between commercial and

recreational fishermen competing for

tuna off the Mid-Atlantic coast. NMFS

has decided to schedule a public

meeting for early fall 1996 to brief

interested parties on the negotiated

rulemaking process and obtain their

views as to immediate steps for action

that would permit resolution prior to

next year’s fishing season.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted to the Highly Migratory

Species Division, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Murray-Brown, 301-713-2347.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 1, 1996, NMFS announced that

Commerce was considering establishing

a new advisory committee under FACA

to negotiate issues leading to a proposed

rule resolving the gear conflict between

recreational and commercial fishermen

competing for tuna off the Mid-Atlantic

coast (61 FR 3666, February 1, 1996).

The decision to use a negotiated

rulemaking process—in accordance

with the Presidential Directive of March

4, 1995, the report of the National

Performance Review, and EO 12866—

came in response to the National

Fishing Association’s petition to employ

such a procedure in connection with the

tuna dispute. The goal is to produce

better regulations, use parties’ time and

resources more wisely, and reduce

litigation, controversy, and uncertainty.

The announcement described generally

how an advisory committee would be

established, participants selected, and

requests for representation narrowed. It

also set forth a list of possible interests

and participants and sought comment

on the tentative pool of representatives.

Finally, the document set forth a

tentative schedule, indicating NMFS’

plans to hold meetings of the advisory

committee at 2-week intervals starting

in March 1996. This document

supplements the February

announcement, and is intended to

provide an update. While NMFS had

hoped to start, and finish, the negotiated

rulemaking process before the 1996

fishery, this has not been possible.

Following the announcement, NMFS

contracted with two dispute resolution

professionals, Philip J. Harter and

Charles Pou of Washington, DC, for

advice on establishment of the advisory

committee and to facilitate and mediate

the negotiations. The contractors have

begun to contact representatives of

groups that responded to NMFS’s

announcement and will be speaking to

all of these persons in the near future.

The initial contacts indicate that most

fishermen are now concentrating on

preparing for the summer tuna fishery

and, hence, it would be more

convenient to postpone any negotiations

until near the end of the 1996 season.

The contractors have therefore

recommended that NMFS hold a public

briefing on the negotiated rulemaking

process in early fall 1996 and select

advisory committee members and

commence negotiations soon after the

public briefing. NMFS agrees with, and

will implement, these

recommendations.

The fall 1996 session will bring

together representatives of as many

affected interests as possible, as well as

any others who want to attend, for a

briefing on the negotiated rulemaking

process; an opportunity for interested

persons to offer views and discuss

specific potential issues that should be

addressed in such a process; and a

chance to consider immediate steps for

action that would permit resolution

prior to commencement of next year’s

fishing season.

NMFS will work with the contractors

over the summer to clarify issues and

develop an agenda for the fall briefing,

and welcomes input on these matters

from interested persons. In addition, the

discussion at the fall session, and

subsequent negotiations, will be

improved substantially if parties collect

relevant data and other useful

information over the summer, to permit

these talks to proceed on the basis of

fact. For this reason, NMFS encourages

all parties to use the summer to identify

and collect information that

substantiates or illuminates their claims

and concerns.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.

Dated: June 7, 1996.

Richard H. Schaefer,

Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and

Management, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

[FR Doc. 96–15166 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F