Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-05-03 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice of revocation of Export Trade Certificate of Review Application No

29,012 words·~132 min read·/register/2006/05/03/06-4172

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-865] Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 3, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand or Carrie Blozy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3207 and
(202)482-5403, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005. *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 65883 (November 1, 2005). On November 30, 2005, Nucor Corporation, a domestic producer of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Angang Group International Trade Corporation, Angang Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd., New Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation, Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., and Baosteel Group International Trade Corporation. On December 22, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the PRC. *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* (“ *Notice of Initiation* ”), 70 FR 76024 (December 22, 2005). The period of review (“POR”) is November 1, 2004 through October 31, 2005. We are preliminarily rescinding this review based on evidence on the record indicating that there were no entries into the United States of subject merchandise during the POR by the named firms. On December 27, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire. On January 6, 2006, Angang Group International Trade Corporation, Angang Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd., New Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (collectively “Angang”), submitted a letter stating that Angang has no sales, shipments, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Also on January 6, 2006, Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation, Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., and Baosteel Group International Trade Corporation, (collectively “Baosteel”), submitted a letter stating that Baosteel has no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department conducted a customs data query for possible entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR by Angang and Baosteel (“respondents”). On January 10, 2006, we sent an inquiry to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) asking for notification from CBP if it had information contrary to respondents' claims that there were no shipments of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR by the respondents. We received no response from CBP in regard to this January 10, 2006, request, which indicates that CBP did not find any shipments of subject merchandise from respondents during the POR. Also on January 10, 2006, we requested that CBP provide the entry documentation for certain entries of respondents' merchandise claimed to be non-subject to confirm that these were entries of non-subject merchandise. On February 23, 2006, CBP provided the Department with entry documentation for the specified sales. Based on the results of our corroborative CBP query indicating no shipments of subject merchandise by respondents during the POR, and our analysis of the data contained in the CBP-provided customs entry documentation, showing non-subject entries, we find that there is no evidence on the record of entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR by Angang or Baosteel. *See* Memorandum to the File dated April 12, 2006. Therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding this review based on evidence on the record indicating that there were no entries into the United States of subject merchandise during the POR. Scope of the Review For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this review. Specifically included within the scope of this review are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy
(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this review, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which:
(i)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(ii)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(iii)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this review unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this review: • Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, *e.g.* , American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute
(AISI)grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS. The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this review, including: Vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is November 1, 2004 through October 31, 2005. Preliminary Rescission of Review Because neither Angang nor Baosteel made shipments to the United States of subject merchandise during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are preliminarily rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the PRC for the period of November 1, 2004, to October 31, 2005. If the rescission is confirmed in our final results, the cash deposit rate for Angang and Baosteel will continue to be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. Interested parties may submit comments for consideration in the Department's final results not later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than 10 days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303, and must be served on interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results, and will publish these results in the **Federal Register** . This notice is published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: April 26, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-6672 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-845] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan; Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 13, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** a notice announcing the preliminary rescission of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) from Japan. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan: Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 7522 (February 13, 2006) ( *Preliminary Rescission* ). The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. We are rescinding this review because there were no entries of SSSSC for consumption in the United States during the POR that are subject to review. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 3, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone
(202)482-4007 or
(202)482-4929, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This review covers Kawasaki Steel Corporation (Kawasaki) and its alleged successor-in-interest, JFE Steel Corporation (JFE). 1 On February 13, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary rescission of the administrative review of SSSSC from Japan. *See Preliminary Rescission.* We invited parties to comment on our preliminary rescission of this administrative review, however we received no such comments from interested parties. 1 While the Department initiated this administrative review with respect to merchandise manufactured and/or exported by Kawasaki as well as its alleged successor-in-interest, JFE, due to Kawasaki/JFE's no-shipment claim, the Department did not have the opportunity to conduct a successor-in-interest analysis in order to confirm whether, for antidumping purposes, JFE is the successor-in-interest to Kawasaki with respect to the subject merchandise. However, both the petitioners and respondent have consistently referred to JFE as the successor-in-interest to Kawasaki in their submissions to the Department with respect to this and the previous review. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 18369 (April 11, 2005). After examining the information on the record, we continue to find that JFE did not have any entries of subject merchandise during this POR. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding this administrative review. For further discussion, see the “Rescission of Review” section of this notice, below. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain SSSSC. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS)at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:
(1)Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,
(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,
(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),
(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and
(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 2 2 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 3 3 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System
(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 4 4 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 6 5 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 6 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Period of Review The POR is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. Rescission of Review On October 5, 2005, JFE notified the Department that it did not have any shipments and/or entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. As described in the preliminary results, we confirmed JFE's claim by examining U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)import data and documentation, and comments placed on the record by JFE. Accordingly, we determined that the record contains no evidence that JFE had knowledge of the U.S. destination of a particular JFE-produced shipment of SSSSC during the POR that we observed during our review of the CBP import data. *See Preliminary Rescission* , 71 FR at 7524. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are rescinding our review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Japan for the period of July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. *See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005). We will instruct CBP to liquidate the entry in question at the “All-Others Rate,” 40.18 percent, as it was made by an intermediary company ( *e.g.* , a reseller) not covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). The cash deposit rate for Kawasaki and JFE will continue to be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: April 26, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-6674 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-489-501) Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by the respondent, Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S., Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.S., and its affiliated export trading company, Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S., (collectively, “Toscelik”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube (“welded pipe and tube”) from Turkey. This review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Toscelik. We preliminarily determine that Toscelik did not make sales below normal value (“NV”). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price (“EP”) and the NV. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Cho or George McMahon, at
(202)482-5075, or
(202)482-1167, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 15, 1986, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the *Antidumping Duty Order; Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube from Turkey* , 51 FR 17784 (May 15, 1986). On May 2, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 22631 (May 2, 2005). On May 31, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214 and section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and of the antidumping order on welded carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey, Toscelik requested a new shipper review. On June 30, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of antidumping duty new shipper review for the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. *See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review for the Period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005* , 70 FR 39487 (June 30, 2005). On December 5, 2005, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results until no later than April 26, 2006. *See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey: Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 70 FR 72426 (December 5, 2005). On July 5, 2005, the Department sent an antidumping duty administrative review questionnaire for Sections A-C to Toscelik. 1 The Department received Toscelik's Section A-C questionnaire response on August 29, 2005. On September 19, 2005, domestic interested parties 2 submitted an allegation that Toscelik's home market sales were made at prices below the cost of production (“COP”). The Department analyzed the information referenced in petitioners' letter of September 19, 2005, and determined that the COP allegation was company-specific, employed a reasonable methodology, provided evidence of below-cost sales, and included models which are representative of the broader range of pipe and tube sold by Toscelik. Therefore, we determined that the petitioners' COP allegation provided a reasonable basis to initiate a new shipper COP review. *See* Memorandum from LaVonne Clark to Neal Halper entitled “Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the COP for Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S.” (“COP Memo”), dated September 28, 2005, on file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (“CRU”). 1 The questionnaire consists of sections A (general information), B (sales in the home market or to third countries), C (sales to the United States), D (cost of production/constructed value), and E (cost of further manufacturing or assembly performed in the United States). 2 The domestic interested parties are Allied Tube and Conduit Corp., IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Sharon Tube Company and Wheatland Tube Company. As a result, the Department issued a Section D questionnaire to Toscelik on September 28, 2005. The Department granted an extension to Toscelik and subsequently received Toscelik's Section D questionnaire response on November 9, 2005. The Department subsequently issued three supplemental questionnaires regarding Sections A-C of the Department's initial questionnaire to Toscelik on October 7, 2005, January 6, 2006, and February 10, 2006, respectively. The Department also issued two supplemental questionnaires regarding Section D of the Department's initial questionnaire on November 30, 2005, and January 19, 2006, respectively. The Department received Toscelik's three supplemental questionnaire responses for Sections A-C on November 4, 2005, February 6, 2006, and February 21, 2006, respectively. The Department received Toscelik's two supplemental questionnaire responses for Section D on December 7, 2005, and February 2, 2006, respectively. The Department conducted a verification of Toscelik's cost of production from March 6 through March 10, 2006, and a verification of Toscelik's sales from March 13 through March 17, 2006. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order include circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, or galvanized, painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded and coupled). Those pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipe, though they may also be called structural or mechanical tubing in certain applications. Standard pipes and tubes are intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioner units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and mechanical applications, such as for fence tubing, and for protection of electrical wiring, such as conduit shells. The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing, or those types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard pipe applications. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included in the scope of this order, except for line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit. Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified the information provided by Toscelik. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of the relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are detailed in the company-specific verification report placed in the case file in the CRU. *See* Toscelik's Sales Verification Report and Toscelik's Cost Verification Report, dated April 26, 2006, and Calculation Memorandum, dated April 26, 2006, in the CRU. Product Comparisons We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the *Export Price* and *Normal Value* sections of this notice. In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to match contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and comparison market that were identical with respect to the following characteristics:
(1)Grade;
(2)nominal pipe size;
(3)wall thickness;
(4)surface finish; and
(5)end finish. When there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare with the U.S. sale, we compared the U.S. sale with the most similar merchandise based on the characteristics listed above in the order of priority listed. Export Price Toscelik sold subject merchandise directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the record facts of this review. Therefore, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we applied the Department's EP methodology for all of Toscelik's sales. We calculated EP using, as starting price, the packed, delivered price to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made the following deductions from the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate: foreign inland freight from the mill to warehouse to port, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, and other related charges. In addition, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added duty drawback to the starting price, having found preliminarily that such an adjustment was warranted under the standard two-prong test. *See Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 374 F. Supp 2d 1257 (CIT May 12, 2005). Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Toscelik's volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product to its respective volume of the U.S. sale of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Toscelik's aggregate volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we determined that Toscelik's home market was viable. We calculated NV as noted in the “Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices” and “Calculation of NV Based on Constructed Value” sections of this notice. B. Cost of Production (“COP”) Analysis As referenced in the background section, the Department conducted an analysis of the domestic interested parties' allegation that Toscelik's home market sales were made below the COP. We found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Toscelik's sales of the foreign like product in the HM were made at prices below their respective COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a new shipper COP review to determine whether Toscelik's sales were made at prices below their COP. *See* COP Memo. 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of Toscelik's costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) and the cost of all expenses incidental to packing and preparing the foreign like product for shipment. We relied on the COP data submitted by Toscelik except for the following adjustments. We adjusted Toscelik's fixed overhead (“FOH”) costs to differentiate each product's depreciation expenses based on the equipment and machinery used to manufacture the product ( *i.e.* , the hydro-static testing, galvanizing, and threading processes). For each reported product, we determined the applicable manufacturing processes ( *e.g.* , galvanizing process is applicable to all galvanized products) and adjusted that product's FOH accordingly. We also increased the reported product-specific cost of manufacturing (“COM”) ( *i.e.* , materials and fabrication) to account for an inflation adjustment made to finished goods inventory at the end of fiscal year (“FY”) 2004. We calculated this adjustment independently of the FOH adjustment. Finally, we revised Toscelik's reported general and administrative (“G&A”) expense ratio to exclude the G&A expenses of Toscelik's affiliated resellers and include other ordinary expenses and losses incurred by Toscelik in FY 2004. We then applied this ratio to the product-specific COM plus packing to determine the product-specific G&A expenses. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home-market sales of the foreign like product as required by section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home-market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, packing, and direct selling expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Toscelik's home-market sales were sold at prices below the COP. Further, we found that the prices for these sales did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales from our analysis and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. C. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices For Toscelik, for those comparison products for which there were sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on home-market prices. We were able to match the U.S. sale to contemporaneous sales, made in the ordinary course of trade, of a similar foreign like product, based on the product matching characteristics. For Toscelik, we calculated NV based on ex-works mill/warehouse to unaffiliated customers, or prices to affiliated customers, which were determined to be at arm's length (see discussion below regarding these sales). We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for discounts, rebates, inland freight, and pre-sale warehouse expense. Additionally, we added billing adjustments because these adjustments were reported as negative values in Toscelik's home market database. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home-market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. Arm's-Length Sales We included in our analysis Toscelik's home-market sales to affiliated customers only where we determined that such sales were made at arm's-length prices, *i.e.* , at prices comparable to prices at which Toscelik sold identical merchandise to their unaffiliated customers. Toscelik's sales to affiliates constituted less than five percent of overall home-market sales. To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Level of Trade As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), at 829-831 ( *see* H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 829-831 (1994)), to the extent practicable, the Department calculates NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as U.S. sales, either EP or CEP. When the Department is unable to find sale(s) in the comparison market at the same LOT as the U.S. sale(s), the Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at different LOTs. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price of sales in the home market. To determine whether home-market sales are at a different LOT than U.S. sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In implementing these principles, we examined information from Toscelik regarding the marketing stages involved in the reported home-market and EP sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. In the home market, Toscelik reported one LOT and two channels of distribution. In the U.S. market, Toscelik reported one LOT and one channel of distribution. We found that there is very little distinction in the selling functions performed for each channel of distribution, and therefore, we determine there is one LOT for the home market and the U.S. market. For home-market sales, we found that Toscelik Profil ve Sac A.S. (“Toscelik Profil”), the producer of subject merchandise, sells directly to distributors and Tosyali Metal Ticaret A.S. (“Tosyali Metal,” Toscelik Profil's domestic trading partner), sells to retailers and end-users. In both instances, the sales are made mill-direct, ex-works without the use of a selling agent. In some cases, Tosyali Metal arranged for freight; however, the purchaser took possession of the merchandise upon loading in all cases. There were no additional services undertaken by Toscelik Profil. Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S.'s (“Tosyali Foreign Trade Co.”) one U.S. sale was made at only one LOT. Tosyali Foreign Trade Co. handles the direct communication with the customer, organizes logistics and the exportation of the merchandise. The merchandise for export is moved from Toscelik Profil's production facility to the port for loading and Tosyali Foreign Trade Co. arranged for ocean freight. Therefore, Tosyali Foreign Trade Co. does not take physical possession of exported pipes. Toscelik's one sale to the U.S. was made on a cost and freight (“CFR”) basis 3 without the use of a selling agent. According to the terms of this sale, the seller is responsible for ocean freight, but not for inland freight in the country of destination. There were no other sales activities undertaken by Tosyali Foreign Trade Co. 3 The International Chamber of Commerce's (“ICC”) Incoterms defines the shipping contract term, “CFR,” as “cost and freight” and indicates that the seller must pay the cost and freight necessary to bring the goods to the named port of destination. *See* http://www.iccwbo.org/incoterms/preambles/pdf/CFR.pdf. Because Toscelik's sales functions in each market were nearly identical and do not vary by customer category, we have determined that the LOT in each market is the same and, therefore, have made no LOT adjustments in comparing its U.S. and home-market sales. Currency Conversion The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the Turkish lira. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow Jones Business Information Services. Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate involves a “fluctuation.” It is the Department's practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark rate is defined as the rolling average of the rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine that a fluctuation exists, we generally utilize the benchmark rate instead of the daily rate, in accordance with established practice. Date of Sale Toscelik reported the date of sale as the invoice date, which is generated for its sale to the United States. During the sales verification of Toscelik, the Department reviewed the U.S. sales processes with company officials to establish that Toscelik's reporting of invoice date as the date of sale was appropriate. Toscelik sells from inventory in the home market and its U.S. sale was produced to order. We reviewed sample order fax confirmations and invoices, which support Toscelik's report of the sales date based on invoice date in the home market. We confirmed that the invoice date is the date when Toscelik's sales are registered into its accounting system. 4 4 *See* Verification Report of the Sales Response of Toscelik Profil ve Sac A.S., Tosyali Metal Ticaret A.S., and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively, Tosçelik) in the Antidumping Review of Certain Welded Pipe and Tube from Turkey, dated April 26, 2006. However, we note that for some observations in the home market database, the invoice date is later than the ship date. Therefore, in order to correct the reporting, we programmed the date of sale based on the shipment date rather than the invoice date. The Department uses shipment date as date of sale where shipment date occurred prior to the invoice date, as it is the Department's practice to use the date of shipment as the date of sale where the date of shipment precedes invoice date. *See Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 623 (January 6, 2004). *See also Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada* , 68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003), and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. In addition, the Department confirms that the invoice date reflects the date of sale for Toscelik's sale to the United States. At verification, the Department confirmed that the final quantity amount of the U.S. sale was not known until Turkish Customs weighed the shipment. 5 Therefore, the final terms of the U.S. sale were not finalized until the shipment was officially weighed and invoiced upon shipment to the customer. 5 *See Id* . at 9-10. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Toscelik 0.00 percent We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. *See* section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument:
(1)A statement of the issue,
(2)a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments or hearing, within 120 days from publication of this notice. Assessment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise. Upon completion of this review, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all entries of subject merchandise by those importers. We have calculated each importer's duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total calculated entered value of examined sales. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , the importer-specific rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries made during the POR. Cash Deposit Requirements Bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments from Toscelik of certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of new shipper review. The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date as provided for by sections 751(a)(1) and 751 (a)(2)(C) of the Act: • for subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Toscelik, the cash deposit rate shall be 0.00 percent; • for subject merchandise exported by Toscelik but not manufactured by Toscelik, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the “All Others” rate or the rate applicable to the manufacturer, if so established; • the cash deposit rate for exporters who received a rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; • if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer participated; • if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 14.74 percent, the All Others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of new shipper review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: April 26, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-6676 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration University of Connecticut, et al., Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications, for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, Franklin Court Building, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC. Docket Number: 06-007. Applicant: University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Technai G2 Spirit BioTWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 71 FR 18082, April 10, 2006. Order Date: April 15, 2005. Docket Number: 06-009. Applicant: The New York Structural Biology Laboratory, New York, NY 10027. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2100F. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan.Intended Use: See notice at 71 FR 18082, April 10, 2006. Order Date: May 26, 2005. Docket Number: 06-010. Applicant: Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA 30322. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Morgagni 268. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 71 FR 18082, April 10, 2006. Order Date: September 1 2005. Docket Number: 06-011 Applicant: President and Fellows of Harvard College, Cambridge, MA 02138. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2100. Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 71 FR 18082, April 10, 2006. Order Date: June 17, 2005. Docket Number: 06-013. Applicant: Ames Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy, Ames, Iowa 50011-3020. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Technai G2 F20 X-TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 71 FR 18082, April 10, 2006. Order Date: September 7, 2005. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is a conventional transmission electron microscope
(CTEM)and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring a CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States either at the time of order of each instrument OR at the time of receipt of application by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E6-6675 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and
(4)of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC Docket Number: 06-015. Applicant: University of Kentucky, Department of Chemistry, 235 Chem-Phys. Bldg., Lexington, KY 40506-0055. Instrument: Optical Parametric Oscillator System. Manufacturer: GWU Lasertechnik, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to study small silicon, germanium, phosphorus and boron containing molecules in the gas phase using the technique of laser-induced fluorescence to develop methods for identifying and characterizing these molecules and to determine their molecular energy levels and geometries and to quantify these reactive molecules in laboratory and industrial environments. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 27, 2006. Docket Number: 06-016. Applicant: University of Maryland, Materials Science and Engineering Department, Building 225, Lab 1246, College Park, MD 20742. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2100. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to characterize nanomaterials and nanocomposites at the atomic level. These include semiconductor nanostructures, polymeric materials, metal nanoparticles, ferroelectric/ferromagnetic oxide nanocomposites and semiconductor nanowires. Properties of materials examined include crystal structure and quality of material, structural defects, and morphology using techniques of electron diffraction, high resolution lattice imaging, bright/dark field imaging and obtaining electron diffraction patterns and images of areas as small as a few nanometers in diameter. The instrument will also be used in courses and for conducting individual graduate research projects. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: April 4, 2006. Docket Number: 06-017. Applicant: University of Michigan, Materials Science and Engineering Dept., 3062 H.H. Dow Bldg., 2300 Hayward Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2136. Instrument: Ultrasonic Fatigue Testing Equipment. Manufacturer: BOKU Institute of Physics, Austria. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to study ultra-high cyclic fatigue behavior of materials in the gigacycle regime where little data is currently available. Measurements for understanding crack growth behavior in various materials will be obtained for aiding in the prediction of lifetime behavior with cyclic loading frequencies to 20KHz. It will also be used to characterize new materials being developed to perform under high cyclic loading conditions, such as next generation superalloys used in aircraft and power generating turbines. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: April 10, 2006. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E6-6677 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate Of Review ACTION: Notice of revocation of Export Trade Certificate of Review Application No. 03-00004. SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to NYVZ Import & Export Inc. on November 10, 2003. Because this Certificate Holder has failed to file an annual report as required by law, the Secretary is revoking the certificate. This notice summarizes the notification letter sent to NYVZ Import & Export Inc. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, 202/482-5131. This is not a toll-free number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (“The Act”) (Pub. L. 97-290, 15 U.S.C. 4011-21) Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to Issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The Regulations Implementing Title III (“the Regulations”) are found at 15 CFR part 325 (1999). Pursuant to this Authority, a Certificate of Review was issued on November 10, 2003 to NYVZ Import & Export Inc. A Certificate Holder is required by law to submit to the Secretary of Commerce Annual Reports that update financial and other information relating to business activities covered by its Certificate (Section 308 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 4018, section 325.14(a) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(a)). The Annual Report is due within 45 days after the Anniversary Date of the Issuance of the Certificate of Review (Sections 325.14(b) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(b)). Failure to submit a complete Annual Report may be the Basis for Revocation (Sections 325.10(a) and 325.14(c) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(a)(3) and 325.14(c)). On December 16, 2004, the Secretary of Commerce sent to NYVZ Import & Export Inc., a letter containing Annual Report questions stating that its annual report was due on January 31, 2005. A reminder was sent on November 8, 2005 with a due date of December 23, 2005. The Secretary has received no written response from NYVZ Import & Export Inc., to any of these letters. On March 24, 2006, and in accordance with Section 325.10(c)(1) of the Regulations, (15 CFR 325.10(c)(1)), the Secretary of Commerce sent a letter by Certified Mail to notify NYVZ Import & Export Inc., that the Secretary was formally initiating the process to revoke its Certificate for failure to file an annual report. NYVZ Import & Export Inc., has not responded within the 30 day deadline, April 17, 2006. Pursuant to Section 325.10(c)(2) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.10(c)(2)), the Secretary considers the failure of NYVZ Import & Export Inc., to respond to be an admission of the statements contained in the notification letter. The Secretary has determined to revoke the Certificate issued to NYVZ Import & Export Inc., for its failure to file an annual report. The Secretary has sent a letter, dated April 26, 2006 to notify the NYVZ Import & Export Inc., of its final determination. The Revocation is effective thirty
(30)days from the date of publication of this notice, see 15 CFR 325.10
(c)(4). Any person aggrieved by this decision may appeal to an appropriate U.S. District Court within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , see 325.11 of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.11. Dated: April 24, 2006. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-6592 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of revocation of Export Trade Certificate of Review Application No. 00-00001. SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to North America Export Trading, LLC., on June 8, 2000. Because this Certificate Holder has failed to file an annual report as required by law, the Secretary is revoking the certificate. This notice summarizes the notification letter sent to North America Export Trading, LLC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, 202/482-5131. This is not a Toll-free number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (“The Act”) (Pub. L. 97-290, 15 U.S.C. 4011-21) Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to Issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The Regulations Implementing Title III (“the Regulations”) are found at 15 CFR part 325 (1999). Pursuant to this Authority, a Certificate of Review was issued on June 8, 2000 to North America Export Trading, LLC. A Certificate Holder is required by law to submit to the Secretary of Commerce Annual Reports that update financial and other information relating to business activities covered by its Certificate (section 308 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 4018, section 325.14(a) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(a)). The Annual Report is due within 45 days after the Anniversary Date of the Issuance of the Certificate of Review (sections 325.14(b) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(b)). Failure to submit a complete Annual Report may be the Basis for Revocation (sections 325.10(a) and 325.14(c) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(a)(3) and 325.14(c)). On May 28, 2005, the Secretary of Commerce sent to North America Export Trading, LLC., a letter containing Annual Report questions stating that its annual report was due on July 23, 2005. A reminder was sent on November 8, 2005 with a due date of December 23, 2005. The Secretary has received no written response from North America Export Trading, LLC., to any of these letters. On March 17, 2006, and in accordance with section 325.10(c)(1) of the Regulations, (15 CFR 325.10(c)(1)), the Secretary of Commerce sent a letter by Certified Mail to notify North America Export Trading, LLC., that the Secretary was formally initiating the process to revoke its Certificate for failure to file an annual report. The Secretary received notification that the letter was received by North America Export Trading, LLC., on March 23, 2006. Pursuant to section 325.10(c)(2) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.10(c)(2)), the Secretary considers the failure of North America Export Trading, LLC., to respond to be an admission of the statements contained in the notification letter. The Secretary has determined to revoke the Certificate issued to North America Export Trading, LLC., for its failure to file an annual report. The Secretary has sent a letter, dated April 28, 2006 to notify the North America Export Trading, LLC., of its final determination. The Revocation is effective thirty
(30)days from the date of publication of this notice (325.10(c))(4) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(c)). Any person aggrieved by this decision may appeal to an appropriate U.S. District Court within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** “(325.11 of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.11).” Dated: April 28, 2006. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-6690 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of revocation of Export Trade Certificate of Review, Application No. 84-00014. SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to Aires Group, Ltd., on July 10, 1984. Because this Certificate Holder has failed to file an annual report as required by law, the Secretary is revoking the certificate. This notice summarizes the notification letter sent to Aires Group, Ltd. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, 202/482-5131. This is not a Toll-free number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (“The Act”) (Pub. L. 97-290, 15 U.S.C. 4011-21) Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to Issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The Regulations Implementing Title III (“the Regulations”) are found at 15 CFR Part 325 (1999). Pursuant to this Authority, a Certificate of Review was issued on July 10, 1984 to Aires Group, Ltd. A Certificate Holder is required by law to submit to the Secretary of Commerce Annual Reports that update financial and other information relating to business activities covered by its Certificate (Section 308 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 4018, § 325.14(a) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(a)). The Annual Report is due within 45 days after the Anniversary Date of the Issuance of the Certificate of Review (§§ 325.14(b) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(b)). Failure to submit a complete Annual Report may be the Basis for Revocation (§§ 325.10(a) and 325.14(c) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(a)(3) and 325.14(c)). On June 30, 2005, the Secretary of Commerce sent to Aires Group, Ltd., a letter containing Annual Report questions stating that its annual report was due on August 25, 2005. A reminder was sent on October 21, 2005 with a due date of April 17, 2006. The Secretary has received no written response from Aires Group, Ltd., to any of these letters. On March 17, 2006, and in accordance with § 325.10(c)(1) of the Regulations, (15 CFR 325.10(c)(1)), the Secretary of Commerce sent a letter by Certified Mail to notify Aires Group, Ltd., that the Secretary was formally initiating the process to revoke its Certificate for failure to file an annual report. The Secretary received notification that the letter was received by Aires Group, Ltd., on March 22, 2006. Pursuant to § 325.10(c)(2) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.10(c)(2)), the Secretary considers the failure of Aires Group, Ltd., to respond to be an admission of the statements contained in the notification letter. The Secretary has determined to revoke the Certificate issued to Aires Group, Ltd., for its failure to file an annual report. The Secretary has sent a letter, dated April 28, 2006 to notify the Aires Group, Ltd., of its final determination. The Revocation is effective thirty
(30)days from the date of publication of this notice (§ 325.10(c)(4) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(c)). Any person aggrieved by this decision may appeal to an appropriate U.S. District Court within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** “(§ 325.11 of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.11).” Dated: April 28, 2006. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-6711 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Notice of Scope Rulings AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2006. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings completed between January 1, 2006, and March 31, 2006. In conjunction with this list, the Department is also publishing a list of requests for scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations pending as of March 31, 2006. We intend to publish future lists after the close of the next calendar quarter. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0498. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the **Federal Register** a list of scope rulings on a quarterly basis. *See* 19 CFR 351.225(o). Our most recent “Notice of Scope Rulings” was published on February 2, 2006. *See* 71 FR 5646. The instant notice covers all scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations completed by Import Administration between January 1, 2006, and March 31, 2006, inclusive. It also lists any scope or anticircumvention inquiries pending as of March 31, 2006, as well as scope rulings inadvertently omitted from prior published lists. As described below, subsequent lists will follow after the close of each calendar quarter. Scope Rulings Completed Between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2006: Canada A-122-838, C-122-839: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada Requestor: Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports Executive Committee; lumber products meeting the written description of the merchandise that may be entering under HTSUS 4409.10.05, including products continually shaped along the ends are within the scope of the orders; March 3, 2006 People's Republic of China A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Eighteen Karat International Product Sourcing, Inc.; its 12 “orchid” candles are not included within the scope of the antidumping duty order; January 10, 2006. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.; its chicken shaped candle is not included within the scope of the antidumping duty order; January 10, 2006. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Design Ideas, Ltd.; its “Lounge Light” petroleum wax candles equipped with a color-changing light emitting diode
(LED)and battery, and manufactured in the People's Republic of China (PRC), are within the scope of the antidumping duty order, and its “Lumanae” petroleum wax candles equipped with a color-changing LED and battery, and manufactured in Malaysia, are not included within the scope of the antidumping duty order; March 21, 2006. A-570-891: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Central Purchasing, LLC.; an accessory cart that is specifically designed to fit and carry a “Breaker Hammer,” and is imported separately from the Breaker Hammer, is not included within the scope of the antidumping duty order; February 1, 2006. A-570-891: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Central Purchasing, LLC.; its two “welding carts” are not included within the scope of the antidumping duty order; February 15, 2006. A-570-891: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Vertex International, Inc.; certain components of its Garden Cart, if imported separately, are not included within the scope of the order; March 8, 2006. Anticircumvention Determinations Completed Between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2006: None. Anticircumvention Inquiries Terminated Between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2006: None. Scope Inquiries Terminated Between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2006: People's Republic of China A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Cape Craftsmen; whether various cabinets/commodes are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested October 28, 2005; terminated February 10, 2006. A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China Requestor: L. Powell Company; whether certain jewelry armoires without felt or felt-like lining on the door are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested November 30, 2005; terminated January 31, 2006. A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Whitewood Industries; whether certain wooden jewelry armoires lined with felt of felt-like material are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested December 5, 2005; terminated February 10, 2006. Scope Inquiries Pending as of March 31, 2006: Canada A-122-838, C-122-839: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada Requestor: Montana Reclaimed Lumber Co.; whether antique softwood lumber reclaimed from demolition projects are within the scope of the orders; requested January 10, 2006. Italy A-475-059: Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy Requestor: Ritrama, Inc.; whether certain varieties of plastic tape are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested December 13, 2005; initiated January 30, 2006. People's Republic of China A-570-803: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Central Purchasing, LLC; whether its gooseneck claw wrecking bar is within the scope of the bars and wedges antidumping duty order; requested March 13, 2006. A-570-832: Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China Requestor: U.S. Magnesium LLC; whether pure and alloy magnesium processed in Canada, France, or any third country and exported to the United States using pure magnesium ingots originally produced in the PRC is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested July 19, 2005; initiated September 2, 2005. A-570-868: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Mac Industries (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Jiaxing Yinmao International Treading Co., Ltd., and Fujian Zenithen Consumer Products Co., Ltd.; whether their “moon chair” is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested August 18, 2005; initiated November 29, 2005. A-570-878: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China Requestor: PMC Specialities Group, Inc.; whether certain saccharin products originating in the PRC and further-processed in Israel are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested August 12, 2005; initiated October 26, 2005. A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Dorel Asia; whether infant
(baby)changing tables and toddler beds are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested February 15, 2005; initiated November 14, 2005. A-570-891: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Gleason Industrial Products, Inc. and Precision Products, Inc.; whether the “Black and Decker Workmate 525” and “Black and Decker Workmate 500” are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested February 7, 2006. A-570-896: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China Requestor: U.S. Magnesium LLC; whether pure and alloy magnesium processed in Canada, France, or any third country, and exported to the United States using pure magnesium ingots originally produced in the PRC, is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested July 19, 2005; initiated September 2, 2005. Vietnam A-552-801: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Requestor: Piazza Seafood World LLC; whether certain basa and tra fillets from Cambodia which are a product of Vietnam are not included within the antidumping duty order; requested May 12, 2004; initiated October 22, 2004. Anticircumvention Inquiries Pending as of March 31, 2006: People's Republic of China A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: National Candle Association; whether imports of palm and vegetable-based wax candles from the PRC can be considered later-developed merchandise which is now circumventing the antidumping duty order; requested October 8, 2004; initiated February 25, 2005. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: National Candle Association; whether imports of palm and vegetable-based wax candles from the PRC can be considered a minor alteration to the subject merchandise for purposes of circumventing the antidumping duty order; requested October 12, 2004; initiated February 25, 2005. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: National Candle Association; whether imports of candles from the PRC without wicks, into which wicks are then inserted after importation, can be considered “merchandise completed or assembled in the United States” and are circumventing the antidumping duty order; requested December 14, 2005. A-570-868: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Meco Corporation; whether adding a cross-brace to folding metal tables from the PRC to join two legs into pairs can be considered minor alterations to merchandise, which is now circumventing the antidumping duty order (the scope defines the legs of folding metal tables as “legs that mechanically fold independently of one another”); requested October 31, 2005. Vietnam A-552-801: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Requestor: Catfish Farmers of America and certain individual U.S. catfish processors; whether imports of frozen fish fillets from Cambodia made from live fish sourced from Vietnam, and falling within the scope of the order, can be considered “merchandise completed or assembled in other foreign countries” and are circumventing the antidumping duty order; requested August 20, 2004; initiated October 22, 2004. Scope Rulings Inadvertently Omitted from Prior Published Lists: None. Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of pending scope and anticircumvention inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 1870, Washington, DC 20230. This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o). Dated: April 27, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-6673 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Board of Overseers AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that there will be a meeting of the Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award on June 7, 2006. The Board of Overseers is composed of eleven members prominent in the field of quality management and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, assembled to advise the Secretary of Commerce on the conduct of the Baldrige Award. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss and review information received from the National Institute of Standards and Technology with the members of the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The agenda will include: Discussions on the Nonprofit Pilot Program, Baldrige Collaborative Marketing and Research Activities, Applicant Input for the Award Process and NIST Director's Funding Competition, a Program Update and Issues from June 6 Judges' Meeting. DATES: The meeting will convene June 7, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at 3 p.m. on June 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Administration Building, Lecture Room A, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. All visitors to the National Institute of Standards and Technology site will have to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, e-mail address and phone number to Virginia Davis no later than Monday, June 5, 2006, and she will provide you with instructions for admittance. Ms. Davis' e-mail address is *virginia.davis@nist.gov* and her phone number is
(301)975-2361. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number
(301)975-2361. Dated: April 25, 2006. William Jeffrey, Director. [FR Doc. E6-6702 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 042406E] Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)announces the availability for public review of the following two documents: the Draft Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan developed by the Yakima Subbasin Planning Board
(YSPB)(the YSPB Plan) for the portion of the Middle Columbia River steelhead ( *Oncorhynchus mykiss* ) distinct population segment
(DPS)that is within the Yakima subbasin management unit, and a Supplement to the YSPB Plan prepared by NMFS (the Supplement). NMFS is soliciting review and comment on the Draft YSPB Plan and the Supplement from the public and all interested parties. DATES: NMFS will consider and address all substantive comments received during the comment period. Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific time on July 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: Please send written comments and materials to Carol Joyce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Salmon Recovery Division, 1201 N.E. Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to: *YakimaSalmonPlan.nwr@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following identifier: Comments on Yakima Salmon Plan. Comments may also be submitted via facsimile
(fax)to 503-872-2737. Persons wishing to review the YSPB Plan and/or Supplement can obtain an electronic copy (i.e., CD-ROM) from Carol Joyce by calling 503-230-5408 or by e-mailing a request to *carol.joyce@noaa.gov* with the subject line “CD-ROM Request for Yakima Steelhead Plan”. Electronic copies of the YSPB Plan are also available online on the Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board Web site, *http://www.co.yakima.wa.us/YakSubbasin/default.htm* . A description of previous public and scientific review, including scientific peer review, can be found in the NMFS Supplement to the YSPB Plan. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Hatcher, NMFS Salmon Recovery Coordinator at 509-962-8911 ext. 223, or Elizabeth Gaar, NMFS Salmon Recovery Division at 503-230-5434. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation and recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). An “evolutionarily significant unit”
(ESU)of Pacific salmon (Waples 1991) and a “distinct population segment”
(DPS)of steelhead (71 FR 834, January 5, 2006) are considered to be “species”, as defined in Section 3 of the ESA. The ESA requires that recovery plans incorporate:
(1)Site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan's goals;
(2)objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered; and
(3)estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions. The ESA requires the development of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the recovery of a particular species. NMFS' goal is to restore endangered and threatened Pacific salmon and steelhead ESA-listed species to the point that they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems and no longer need the protections of the ESA. NMFS believes it is critically important to base its recovery plans on the many state, regional, tribal, local, and private conservation efforts already underway throughout the region. Therefore, the agency supports and participates in locally led collaborative efforts to develop recovery plans involving local communities, state, tribal, and Federal entities, and other stakeholders. On October 26, 2005, the Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board
(YSPB)presented its locally developed recovery plan (YSPB Plan) to NMFS. The YSPB comprises representatives from Yakima County, Benton County, Yakama Nation, and thirteen cities within the subbasin. A variety of partners representing Federal agencies, Washington State agencies, regional organizations, special-purpose districts, consultants, and members of the public participated in the planning process. The draft YSPB Plan addresses a portion of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS within the Yakima management unit (a geographic unit that NMFS has defined for recovery planning purposes). Recently, NMFS revised its species determinations for West Coast steelhead under the ESA, delineating a steelhead-only DPS. The steelhead DPS does not include rainbow trout, which are under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESU was listed as threatened on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14517 ). NMFS listed the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). The January 5, 2006, **Federal Register** notice contains a more complete explanation of this listing decision. After review of the YSPB Plan, NMFS has added a Supplement that describes how the draft YSPB Plan contributes to ESA requirements for recovery plans, including qualifications and additional actions that NMFS believes are necessary to support recovery. The Supplement describes NMFS' intent to endorse the YSPB Plan and to use it as an interim regional recovery plan for one of four Middle Columbia management units that make up the range of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. The YSPB Plan will thereafter be combined with other local and regional plans to construct an overall, DPS-level plan that meets ESA section 4(f) requirements. The YSPB Plan will be an integral component of the full Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS plan expected to be completed in 2006. The YSPB Plan, including the Supplement, is now available for public review and comment. As noted above, the Plan is available online at the Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board website, *www.co.yakima.wa.us/YakSubbasin/default.htm* , and both the Plan and the Supplement are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES . NMFS and the YSPB will consider all comments and information presented during the public comment period (see DATES). By endorsing a locally developed recovery plan, NMFS is making a commitment to implement the actions in the plan for which it has authority, to work cooperatively on implementation of other actions, and to encourage other Federal agencies to implement plan actions for which they have responsibility and authority. NMFS will also encourage the State of Washington to seek similar implementation commitments from state agencies and local governments. NMFS expects the final YSPB Plan to help it and other Federal agencies take a consistent approach to future section 7 consultations. For example, a final plan will provide greater biological context for the effects that a proposed action may have on a listed ESU/DPS. This context will be enhanced by adding recovery plan science to the “best available information” for section 7 consultations. Such information includes viability criteria for an ESU/DPS and its independent populations, better understanding of and information on limiting factors and threats facing the ESU/DPS, better information on priority areas for addressing specific limiting factors, and better geographic context for where the ESU/DPS can tolerate varying levels of risk. ESU/DPS Addressed and Planning Area This Plan is intended for implementation within the Yakima subbasin, which includes only a portion of the Middle Columbia River steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ) DPS, listed as threatened on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14517) and January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834) . The range of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS includes the Columbia River basin and tributaries upstream from the Wind River to and including the Yakima River (but excluding the Snake River) *www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/maps/map_stlhmcr.pdf* . This DPS contains four major population groups (MPGs):
(1)The Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG, which consists of populations in both Washington and Oregon;
(2)John Day River, Oregon;
(3)Walla Walla and Umatilla Rivers, Oregon and Washington; and
(4)Yakima River Group, Washington ( *http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/updated_population_delineation.pdf* , p. 8, Table 1). The Yakima subbasin contains only 20 percent of the acreage and 4 of the 17 fish populations that make up the DPS. The four Yakima subbasin steelhead populations are Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, Naches River, and the Upper Yakima River. These populations are grouped because they share genetic, geographic, and habitat characteristics within the DPS. Because most state and local boundaries are not drawn on the basis of watersheds or ecosystems, the various groups and organizations formed for recovery planning do not necessarily correspond to ESU/DPS areas. Therefore, in order to develop ESU/DPS-wide recovery plans that are built from local recovery efforts, NMFS defined "management units" that roughly follow jurisdictional boundaries but, taken together, encompass the geography of entire ESU/DPSs. For Mid-Columbia River steelhead, there are four management units:
(1)Northeast Oregon;
(2)Yakima;
(3)Columbia Gorge (Klickitat/Rock Creek/White Salmon); and
(4)southeast Washington (Walla Walla and Touchet). The Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan is the plan for the Yakima management unit. In 2006, the separate management unit plans will be “rolled up” or consolidated into ESU/DPS level recovery plans. The final ESU/DPS level recovery plans will incorporate the management unit plans and endorse the recommendations and decisions (for example, decisions on site-specific habitat actions) that are most appropriately left to the local recovery planners and implementers. The ESU/DPS-level plans will also more completely address actions for the hatchery, harvest, and hydropower sectors. The YSPB Plan The YSPB Plan incorporates the NMFS viable salmonid population
(VSP)framework as a basis for biological status assessments and recovery goals for Middle Columbia River steelhead. The YSPB Plan also incorporates the work of the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) appointed by NMFS, which provided recommendations on biological criteria for ESU and population viability. The ICTRT set forth scientific conditions that, if met, would indicate a high probability of persistence into the future for Middle Columbia River steelhead. In the Supplement, NMFS indicates its support for the YSPB Plan's recommendations for biological criteria on an interim basis until biological criteria are developed in 2006 through the DPS-roll up process. The current status of the four major populations in the Yakima subbasin was derived through local assessments, in consultation with the ICTRT and state and tribal co-managers. In general, based on updated status evaluations considering the four VSP parameters of abundance, population growth rate, genetic and life history diversity, and spatial structure, the YSPB Plan concludes that none of the four remaining steelhead populations is currently viable; the Satus and Toppenish populations should be considered to be at moderate risk of extinction, the Naches at moderate to high risk, and the Upper Yakima at high risk. Overall abundance has declined substantially from historical levels, and many populations are small enough that genetic and demographic risks are likely to be relatively high. The YSPB Plan provides a set of recovery actions to implement in the Yakima subbasin. It identifies threats to the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS, includes actions intended to address all the manageable threats within the Yakima management unit, and includes recovery goals and measurable criteria consistent with the ESA. The YSPB Plan's initial approach is to attempt to reduce all manageable threats within the Yakima management unit and to improve the status of all four Yakima steelhead populations. As monitoring and evaluation improve our understanding of the effectiveness of various actions and their benefits throughout the life cycle of salmon and steelhead, adjustments may be made through the adaptive management framework described in the YSPB Plan. The YSPB Plan discusses social, economic, policy, and management factors that have contributed to the ESA listing: Agricultural practices, dams, residential development, and other sources of habitat degradation; excessive fishing; predation; and others. The YSPB Plan identifies the following key threats to the DPS and recovery actions to reduce them: 1. *Habitat:* Human activities have altered and/or curtailed habitat-forming processes and limited the habitat suitable for steelhead in the Yakima subbasin. Although, more recently, land and water management regulations and practices have generally improved, storage dams, diversions, roads and railways, agriculture (including livestock grazing), residential development, and forest management continue to threaten steelhead and their habitat in the subbasin. The results continue to be deleterious changes in flow, water temperature, sedimentation, floodplain dynamics, riparian function, and other factors. 2. *Harvest:* While over-harvest probably contributed to the decline in steelhead status, in-basin and out-of-basin harvests currently are less of a threat here than other factors. The Yakima River and its tributaries have been closed to steelhead fishing since 1994. Current harvest management objectives emphasize survival and recovery of wild steelhead populations. For example, staging areas for pre-spawning steelhead near the mouths of Toppenish and Satus Creeks are closed for coho and fall Chinook salmon during fall salmon fisheries. Out-of-subbasin harvest effects, including incidental mortality in mixed-stock mainstem Columbia River recreational and commercial fisheries, will be addressed in 2006 in the context of the rest of the management units and other out-of-subbasin effects. 3. *Hydroelectric operations:* Although hydroelectric power is produced only on a small scale at three facilities in the Yakima subbasin, their operations cause problems for steelhead, including reduced streamflows in the river reaches between the diversions and power plant outfalls and, in combination with activities at irrigation canals, large flow fluctuations. 4. *Additional factors:* The YSPB Plan reviews the following additional factors that affect Yakima subbasin steelhead: global climate change, hydroelectric production downstream in the mainstem Columbia, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, fluctuating ocean cycles, and predation. These additional factors further support recovery actions to protect and restore local habitat conditions as a buffer against larger-scale changes. The YSPB Plan does not propose actions regarding global climate change or the Columbia hydropower system because these are considered and/or managed in other venues. Steelhead migrating to and from the Yakima subbasin pass four Columbia River hydroelectric dams: Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and McNary. The YSPB Plan notes that in May 2005 the Federal district court for Oregon declared the 2004 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion to be invalid, and at the time of the plan's writing, actions to mitigate the effects of the Federal hydropower facilities were not fully defined. Mainstem hydropower and other out-of-basin actions will be addressed during the DPS-level rollup with the other management units in 2006. Hatcheries are not considered a threat to steelhead in the Yakima subbasin. Steelhead from several sources outside the subbasin were introduced in the past, but steelhead are no longer stocked here. In the mid-1980s, co-managers produced fish from wild Yakima broodstock, but discontinued wild broodstock collection after 1989 because of a low smolt-to-adult survival rate and problems differentiating steelhead populations. Currently, a conservation kelt reconditioning program captures post-spawning steelhead and transfers them to a culture facility to be “reconditioned” (to increase the likelihood that they will make the ocean-to-freshwater journey to spawn more than once during their life spans). So far, research suggests that effects of this program on steelhead population genetic and life history diversity are minor. 5. *Integration:* The YSPB Plan states that recovery will depend on integrating actions that address habitat, harvest, and hydroelectric operations, but also emphasizes that recovery actions affecting steelhead have to be taken at both the subbasin scale and population scales. The YSPB Plan calls for advancing the work on recovery actions at both the subbasin and the population scale in the first years of plan implementation. The YSPB Plan identifies actions needed to achieve recovery by addressing limiting factors and threats to the species. The YSPB Plan also incorporates an adaptive management framework by which approaches and actions will be adjusted over time as conditions change and information is gained as a result of monitoring and evaluation. The YSPB Plan anticipates that future actions will be influenced by additional analysis of costs and effectiveness of recovery actions to maximize efficiency. The goal is to ensure long-term persistence of viable populations of naturally produced steelhead distributed across their native range. To be consistent with the YSPB Plan's goal, listed populations must meet specific abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity objectives and criteria. The implementation schedule covers actions that are ongoing, short-term (those that can be implemented within 5 years), and long-term (those that can be implemented within 15 years). The YSPB Plan commits to developing specific time frames for implementation of long-term actions in 2006. The YSPB Plan states that it may take several decades to recover the Yakima portion of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. The next step outlined in the Supplement is to obtain implementation schedules from each of the responsible entities describing when and how recovery actions will occur and how much they are estimated to cost. The YSPB, with assistance from NMFS, will work to get these implementation activities underway in 2006. Given that salmon recovery efforts have been underway in the Yakima subbasin since the 1980s, much of the internal framework (policy, scientific, public support, and funding) needed to implement these actions is either in place or can be established quickly once the plan is adopted. Implementation schedules and estimated costs will be incorporated into the YSPB Plan. Public Comments Solicited NMFS solicits written comments on the draft YSPB Plan, consisting of both the Yakima Plan and the Supplement. The Supplement states NMFS' assessment of the YSPB Plan's relationship to ESA requirements for recovery plans. The Supplement also explains the agency's intent to use the revised YSPB Plan to guide and prioritize recovery actions and to ultimately incorporate the YSPB Plan into a final Federal ESA recovery plan for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to NMFS' decision whether to endorse the revised YSPB Plan as an interim regional recovery plan and incorporate it into the DPS-level plan. Additionally, NMFS will provide a summary of the comments and responses through its regional web site and will provide a news release for the public announcing the availability of the response to comments. NMFS seeks comments particularly in the following areas:
(1)The analysis of limiting factors and threats;
(2)strategies and actions at the subbasin and population scale;
(3)the criteria for removing the DPS from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
(4)meeting the ESA requirement for estimates of time and cost to implement recovery actions by soliciting implementation schedules (see discussion in the Supplement); and
(5)the process of developing ESU-wide recovery plans using management unit plans. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: April 27, 2006. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-6707 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 020306A] Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Seismic Surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of application and proposed incidental take authorization; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS has received two applications from Shell Offshore, Inc. and WesternGeco, Inc. (Shell) for Incidental Harassment Authorizations
(IHAs)to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting a marine geophysical program, including deep seismic surveys, on oil and gas lease blocks located on Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)waters in the mid- and eastern-Beaufort Sea and on pre-lease areas in the Northern Chukchi Sea. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue a single IHA to Shell to take, by Level B harassment, small numbers of several species of marine mammals between July and November, 2006 incidental to conducting seismic surveys. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than June 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to the Chief of the Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one of the contacts listed here. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *PR1.020306A@noaa.gov* . Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the application (containing a list of the references used in this document) may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact listed here and are also available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#iha.* A copy of the Minerals Management Service's
(MMS)Programmatic Environmental Assessment
(PEA)is available on-line at: *http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/pea_be.htm* . Documents cited in this document, that are not available through standard public library access, may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours at this address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hollingshead or Jolie Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers 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 either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival." Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or
(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. Summary of Request On November 16, 2005, NMFS received two applications from Shell for the taking, by Level B harassment, of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting a marine seismic survey program during 2006 in the mid- and eastern-Beaufort and northern Chukchi seas. The deep seismic survey component of the program will be conducted from WesternGeco's vessel the *M/V Gilavar* . Detailed specifications on this seismic survey vessel are provided in Shell's application (Attachment A - Seismic Survey, Overview/Description). These specifications include:
(1)complete descriptions of the number and lengths of the streamers which form the airgun and hydrophone arrays;
(2)airgun size and sound propagation properties; and
(3)additional detailed data on the *M/V Gilavar* 's characteristics. In summary, the *M/V Gilavar* will tow two source arrays, comprising three identical subarrays each, which will be fired alternately as the ship sails downline in the survey area. *The M/V Gilavar* will tow up to 6 hydrophone streamer cables up to 5.4 kilometers
(km)(3.4 mi) long. With this configuration each pass of the *Gilavar* can record 12 subsurface lines spanning a swath of up to 360 meters (m; 1181 ft). The seismic data acquisition vessel will be supported by the *M/V Alex Gordon* , which will serve to resupply and re-fuel the *M/V Gilavar* . The *M/V Alex Gordon* is also capable of ice management should that be required. The *M/V Alex Gordon* will not deploy seismic acquisition gear. Plan for Seismic Operations It is planned that the *M/V Gilavar* will be in the Chukchi Sea in early July to begin deploying the acquisition equipment. Seismic acquisition is planned to begin on or about July 10, 2006. The approximate areas of operations are shown in Appendix 4 in Shell's IHA application. Acquisition will continue in the Chukchi Sea until ice conditions permit a transit into the Beaufort Sea around early August. Seismic acquisition is planned to continue in the Beaufort at one of three 3-D areas until early October depending on ice conditions. These 3-D areas are shown in Appendix 5 in Shell's application. For each of the 3-D areas, the M/V Gilavar will traverse the area multiple times until data on the area of interest has been recorded. At the conclusion of seismic acquisition in the Beaufort Sea, the *M/V Gilavar* will return to the Chukchi Sea and resume recording data there until all seismic lines are completed or weather prevents data collection. The proposed Beaufort Sea deep seismic, site clearance, shallow hazard surveys and geotechnical activities are proposed to commence in August and continue until weather precludes further seismic work. The timing is scheduled to avoid any conflict with the Beaufort Sea subsistence hunting conducted by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission's
(AEWC)villages. In summary, the proposed Chukchi deep seismic survey will occur in two phases. Phase 1 will commence sometime after June 15, 2006, as sea ice coverage conditions allow and will continue through July to early August, 2006. Phase 2 of the Chukchi deep seismic survey will occur upon completion of the Beaufort Sea survey sometime after mid-October and continue until such time as sea ice and weather conditions preclude further work, probably sometime in mid- to late-November, 2006. Shell plans to run approximately 5556 km (3452 mi) of surveys in the Chukchi Sea and a similar survey length in the Beaufort Sea. Alternatively, if ice conditions preclude seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea, Shell proposes to continue its seismic program in the Chukchi Sea through mid- to late-November, 2006, or approximately 5.5 months. This scenario takes into account that approximately twice as many seismic line miles would be completed during this time in the Chukchi Sea. Under this scenario approximately 6000 nm (6905 stat mi; 11,112 km) of seismic line miles could be completed in the Chukchi Sea. A detailed description of the work proposed by Shell for 2006 is contained in the two applications which are available for review (see ADDRESSES ). Description of Marine 3-D Seismic Data Acquisition In the seismic method, reflected sound energy produces graphic images of seafloor and sub-seafloor features. The seismic system consists of sources and detectors, the positions of which must be accurately measured at all times. The sound signal comes from arrays of towed energy sources. These energy sources store compressed air which is released on command from the towing vessel. The released air forms a bubble which expands and contracts in a predictable fashion, emitting sound waves as it does so. Individual sources are configured into arrays. These arrays have an output signal, which is more desirable than that of a single bubble, and also serve to focus the sound output primarily in the downward direction, which is useful for the seismic method. This array effect also minimizes the sound emitted in the horizontal direction. The downward propagating sound travels to the seafloor and into the geologic strata below the seafloor. Changes in the acoustic properties between the various rock layers result in a portion of the sound being reflected back toward the surface at each layer. This reflected energy is received by detectors called hydrophones, which are housed within submerged streamer cables which are towed behind the seismic vessel. Data from these hydrophones are recorded to produce seismic records or profiles. Seismic profiles often resemble geologic cross-sections along the course traveled by the survey vessel. Description of WesternGeco's Air-Gun Array Shell proposes to use WesternGeco's 3147 in 3 Bolt-Gun Array for its 3-D seismic survey operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. WesternGeco's source arrays are composed of 3 identically tuned Bolt-gun sub-arrays operating at an air pressure of 2,000 psi. In general, the signature produced by an array composed of multiple sub-arrays has the same shape as that produced by a single sub-array while the overall acoustic output of the array is determined by the number of sub-arrays employed. The gun arrangement for each of the three 1049-in 3 sub-array is detailed in Shell's application. As indicated in the application's diagram, each sub-array is composed of six tuning elements; two 2-gun clusters and four single guns. The standard configuration of a source array for 3D surveys consists of one or more 1049-in 3 sub-arrays. When more than one sub-array is used, as here, the strings are lined up parallel to each other with either 8 m or 10 m (26 or 33 ft) cross-line separation between them. This separation was chosen so as to minimize the areal dimensions of the array in order to approximate point source radiation characteristics for frequencies in the nominal seismic processing band. For the 3147 in 3 array the overall dimensions of the array are 15 m (49 ft) long by 16 m (52.5 ft) wide. Shell's application provides illustrations of the time series and amplitude spectrum for the far-field signature and the computed acoustic emission pattern for the vertical inline and crossline planes for the 3147 in3 array with guns at a depth of 6 m (20 ft). The signature for this array was first computed using GSAP, WesternGeco's in house signature modelling software. Based on this model, Shell estimates the sound level output radii (root-mean-squared (rms)) for a 3147 in3 source array at a depth of 6 m (20 ft): 160 dB
(rms):: < 650 m/2133 ft 170 dB
(rms):: < 425 m/1394 ft 180 dB
(rms):: < 225 m/738 ft 190 dB
(rms):: < 120 m/394 ft. Subsequent to submitting its application, Shell contracted with JASCO to model sound source characteristics using a different model. The JASCO parabolic equation model is believed by Shell and NMFS to be superior in these waters because it accounts for bathymetry effects, water properties, and the geoacoustic properties of seabed layers. The JASCO-modeled radii are based on the worst case model predictions. For this model, the proposed 180-dB and 190-dB radii are 1.5 km (0.9 mi) and 0.5 km (0.3mi), respectively. This model will be used by Shell and NMFS to estimate sound level isopleths and radii for rms sound level thresholds between 120 and 190 dB at six proposed survey locations for the proposed airgun arrays. In addition, these modeled radii estimates will be multiplied by a safety margin of 1.5 to obtain conservative exclusion radii for marine mammal safety until empirical sound field verification measurements are completed within the first few days of seismic shooting. An explanation for the indicated sound pressure levels
(SPLs)is provided later in this document (see Impacts to Marine Mammals). Characteristics of Airgun Pulses Discussion of the characteristics of airgun pulses was provided in several previous **Federal Register** documents (see 69 FR 31792 (June 7, 2004) or 69 FR 34996 (June 23, 2004)) and is not repeated here. Additional information can be found in the MMS PEA. Reviewers are encouraged to read these earlier documents for additional information. Site Clearance Surveys In addition to deep seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea, Shell also plans to conduct site clearance and shallow hazards surveys of potential exploratory drilling locations within Shell's lease areas as required by MMS regulations. The site clearance surveys are confined to very small specific areas within defined OCS blocks. Shell is currently in the process of selecting site clearance/shallow hazards and geotechnical contractors and vessels for the site clearance/shallow hazards surveys, and geotechnical borings. As yet unidentified vessels will conduct these surveys contemporaneously with the deep seismic survey program. Very small and limited geophysical survey energy sources will be employed to measure bathymetry, topography, geo-hazards and other seabed characteristics. The actual locations of site clearance and shallow hazard surveys have not been definitively set as of the date of Shell's application. That information will be supplied to NMFS and MMS as it becomes available, but well before the commencement of operations. The vessels conducting the site clearance and shallow hazard surveys, and geotechnical borings will also operate in accordance with the provisions of a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA), between the seismic industry and the AEWC and the Whaling Captains Associations regarding times and areas in order to avoid any possible conflict with the bowhead subsistence whale hunts by the Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. Offshore site clearance surveys use various geophysical methods and tools to acquire graphic records of seafloor and sub-seafloor geologic conditions. The data acquired and the type of investigations outlined in this document are performed routinely for most exploratory drilling and production platforms, submarine pipelines, port facilities, and other offshore projects. High-resolution geophysical data such as two- dimensional, high-resolution multi-channel seismic, medium penetration seismic, subbottom profiler, side scan sonar, multibeam bathymetry, magnetometer and possibly piston core soil sampling are typical types of data acquired. These data are interpreted to define geologic and geotechnical conditions at the site and to assess the potential engineering significance of these conditions. The following section provides a brief description of those instruments used for site clearance that may impact marine mammals. Information on the data acquisition methodology planned by Shell can be found in the Shell application. Geophysical Tools for Site Clearance High-Resolution seismic profiling Reflected sound energy, often called acoustic or seismic energy, produces graphic images of seafloor and sub-seafloor features. These systems transmit the acoustic energy from various sources called transducers that are attached to the hull of the vessel or towed astern. Part of this energy is reflected from the seafloor and from geologic strata below the seafloor. This reflected energy is received by the hydrophone or streamer and is recorded to produce seismic records or profiles. Seismic profiles often resemble geologic cross-sections along the course traveled by the survey vessel. In most Beaufort Sea site surveys, Shell will operate several high- resolution profiling systems simultaneously to obtain detailed records of seafloor and near seafloor conditions. A typical survey would include data acquisition using a shallow penetration profiler or subbottom profiler (1 - 12.0 kHz, typically 3.5 kHz), medium penetration system or boomer/sparker/ airgun (400-800 Hz) and a deep penetrating hi-res multi-channel seismic system (20-300 Hz) not to be confused with the deep seismic used for hydrocarbon exploration. These profiling systems complement each other since each system achieves different degrees of resolution and depths of sub-seafloor penetrations. Side Scan Sonar Unlike seismic profiling systems, which produce a vertical profile along the vessel's path, side scan sonar systems provide graphic records that show two-dimensional
(map)views of seafloor topography and of objects on the seafloor. The sonar images provide a swath display/record covering an area on the seafloor up to several hundred feet on both sides of the survey trackline. The side scan sonar transmits very high-frequency acoustic signals (100 - 410 kHz) and records the reflected energy from the seafloor. Signals reflected from the seafloor are displayed on a continuous record produce by a two-channel recorder. Reflected signals normally appear as dark areas on the record whereas shadows behind objects appear as light or white areas. The intensity and distribution of reflections displayed on the sonar image depend on the composition and surface texture of the reflecting features, on their size, and on their orientation with respect to the transducers in the towfish. Line spacing and display range are designed to ensure 100 percent coverage of the proposed survey area in the prime survey line direction, with additional tie-lines acquired in an orthogonal direction. Side scan sonar data are useful for mapping areas of boulders, rock outcrops, and other areas of rough seafloor, and for determining the location and trends of seafloor scarps and ice gouges. These data are also used to locate shipwrecks, pipelines, and other objects on the seafloor. Multi-beam Bathymetry Multi-beam bathymetric systems are either hull mounted or towed astern of the survey vessel. The system transmits acoustic signals (200-500 kHz) from multiple projectors propagating to either side of the vessel at angles that vary from vertical to near horizontal. The locations of the soundings cover a swath whose width may be equal to many times the waterdepth. By adjusting the spacing of the survey tracklines such that adjacent swaths are overlapping, Shell obtains depth information for 100 percent of the bottom in the survey area. The time it takes to receive the signals as well as signal intensity, position, and other characteristics for echoes received across the swath are used to calculate depth of each individual beam transmitted across the swath. Acoustic systems similar to the ones proposed for use by Shell have been described in detail by NMFS previously (see 66 FR 40996, August 6, 2001; 70 FR 13466, March 21, 2005). NMFS encourages readers to refer to these documents for additional information on these systems. Description of Habitat and Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity A detailed description of the Beaufort and Chukchi sea ecosystems and their associated marine mammals can be found in several documents (Corps of Engineers, 1999; NMFS, 1999; Minerals Management Service (MMS), 2006, 1996 and 1992) and does not need to be repeated here. Marine Mammals The Beaufort/Chukchi Seas support a diverse assemblage of marine mammals, including bowhead whales ( *Balaena mysticetus* ), gray whales ( *Eschrichtius robustus* ), beluga whales ( *Delphinapterus leucas* ), killer whales ( *Orcinus orca* ), harbor porpoise ( *Phocoena phocoena* ), ringed seals ( *Phoca hispida* ), spotted seals ( *Phoca largha* ), bearded seals ( *Erignathus barbatus* ), walrus ( *Odobenus rosmarus* ) and polar bears ( *Ursus maritimus* ). These latter two species are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not discussed further in this document. Descriptions of the biology and distribution of the marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction can be found in Shell's application, MMS' PEA, and several other documents (Corps of Engineers, 1999; Lentfer, 1988; MMS, 1992, 1996; Hill *et al.* , 1999). Information on these species can be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports. The Alaska Stock Assessment Report is available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/readingrm/MMSARS/sar2003akfinal.pdf* . Updated species reports are available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/readingrm/MMSARS/2005alaskasummarySARs.pdf* . Please refer to those documents for information on these species. Potential Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals Disturbance by seismic noise is the principal means of taking by this activity. Support vessels and aircraft may provide a potential secondary source of noise. The physical presence of vessels and aircraft could also lead to non-acoustic effects on marine mammals involving visual or other cues. As outlined in previous NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, and can be categorized as follows (based on Richardson *et al.* , 1995):
(1)The noise may be too weak to be heard at the location of the animal (i.e., lower than the prevailing ambient noise level, the hearing threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or both);
(2)The noise may be audible but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral response;
(3)The noise may elicit reactions of variable conspicuousness and variable relevance to the well being of the marine mammal; these can range from temporary alert responses to active avoidance reactions such as vacating an area at least until the noise event ceases;
(4)Upon repeated exposure, a marine mammal may exhibit diminishing responsiveness (habituation), or disturbance effects may persist; the latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in characteristics, infrequent and unpredictable in occurrence, and associated with situations that a marine mammal perceives as a threat;
(5)Any anthropogenic noise that is strong enough to be heard has the potential to reduce
(mask)the ability of a marine mammal to hear natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from conspecifics, and underwater environmental sounds such as surf noise;
(6)If mammals remain in an area because it is important for feeding, breeding or some other biologically important purpose even though there is chronic exposure to noise, it is possible that there could be noise-induced physiological stress; this might in turn have negative effects on the well-being or reproduction of the animals involved; and
(7)Very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and presumably marine mammals, received sound levels must far exceed the animal's hearing threshold for there to be any temporary threshold shift
(TTS)in its hearing ability. For transient sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is inversely related to the duration of the sound. Received sound levels must be even higher for there to be risk of permanent hearing impairment. In addition, intense acoustic or explosive events may cause trauma to tissues associated with organs vital for hearing, sound production, respiration and other functions. This trauma may include minor to severe hemorrhage. Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals Shell
(2005)states that the only anticipated impacts to marine mammals associated with noise propagation from vessel movement, seismic airgun operations, and seabed profiling and coring work would be the temporary and short term displacement of seals and whales from within ensonified zones produced by such noise sources. In the case of bowhead whales, that displacement might well take the form of a deflection of the swim paths of migrating bowheads away from (seaward of) received noise levels greater than 160 db (Richardson *et al.* , 1999). The cited and other studies conducted to test the hypothesis of the deflection response of bowheads have determined that bowheads return to the swim paths they were following at relatively short distances after their exposure to the received sounds. Shell believes that there is no evidence that bowheads so exposed have incurred injury to their auditory mechanisms. Additionally, Shell cites Richardson and Thomson [eds].
(2002)that there is no conclusive evidence that exposure to sounds exceeding 160 db have displaced bowheads from feeding activity. NMFS notes that results from the 1996-1998 BP and Western Geophysical seismic monitoring programs in the Beaufort Sea indicate that most fall migrating bowheads deflected seaward to avoid an area within about 20 km (12.4 mi) of an active nearshore seismic operation, with the exception of a few closer sightings when there was an island or very shallow water between the seismic operations and the whales (Miller *et al.* , 1998, 1999). The available data do not provide an unequivocal estimate of the distance (and received sound levels) at which approaching bowheads begin to deflect, but this may be on the order of 35 km (21.7 mi). It is also uncertain how far beyond (west of) the seismic operation the seaward deflection persists (Miller *et al.* , 1999). Although very few bowheads approached within 20 km (12.4 mi) of the operating seismic vessel, the number of bowheads sighted within that area returned to normal within 12-24 hours after the airgun operations ended (Miller *et al.* , 1999). Although NMFS believes that some limited masking of low-frequency sounds (e.g., whale calls) is a possibility during seismic surveys, the intermittent nature of seismic source pulses (1 second in duration every 16 to 24 seconds (i.e., less than 7 percent duty cycle)) will limit the extent of masking. Bowhead whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic survey sounds, and their calls can be heard between seismic pulses (Greene *et al.* , 1999, Richardson *et al.* , 1986). Masking effects are expected to be absent in the case of belugas, given that sounds important to them are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are airgun sounds (Western Geophysical, 2000). Hearing damage is not expected to occur during the Shell seismic survey project. It is not positively known whether the hearing systems of marine mammals very close to an airgun would be at risk of temporary or permanent hearing impairment, but TTS is a theoretical possibility for animals within a few hundred meters of the source (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). However, planned monitoring and mitigation measures (described later in this document) are designed to avoid sudden onsets of seismic pulses at full power, to detect marine mammals occurring near the array, and to avoid exposing them to sound pulses that have any possibility of causing hearing impairment. Moreover, as mentioned previously, bowhead whales avoid an area many kilometers in radius around ongoing seismic operations, precluding any possibility of hearing damage. When the received levels of noise exceed some behavioral reaction threshold, cetaceans will show disturbance reactions. The levels, frequencies, and types of noise that will elicit a response vary between and within species, individuals, locations, and seasons. Behavioral changes may be subtle alterations in surface, respiration, and dive cycles. More conspicuous responses include changes in activity or aerial displays, movement away from the sound source, or complete avoidance of the area. The reaction threshold and degree of response are related to the activity of the animal at the time of the disturbance. Whales engaged in active behaviors, such as feeding, socializing, or mating, are less likely than resting animals to show overt behavioral reactions, unless the disturbance is directly threatening. The following summaries are provided by NMFS to facilitate understanding of our knowledge of impulsive noise impacts on the principal marine mammal species that are expected to be affected. Bowhead Whales Seismic pulses are known to cause strong avoidance reactions by many of the bowhead whales occurring within a distance of a few kilometers, including changes in surfacing, respiration and dive cycles, and may sometimes cause avoidance or other changes in bowhead behavior at considerably greater distances (Richardson *et al.* , 1995; Rexford, 1996; MMS, 1997). Studies conducted prior to 1996 (Reeves *et al.* , 1984, Fraker *et al.* , 1985, Richardson *et al.* , 1986, Ljungblad *et al.* , 1988) have reported that, when an operating seismic vessel approaches within a few kilometers, most bowhead whales exhibit strong avoidance behavior and changes in surfacing, respiration, and dive cycles. In these studies, bowheads exposed to seismic pulses from vessels more than 7.5 km (4.7 mi) away rarely showed observable avoidance of the vessel, but their surface, respiration, and dive cycles appeared altered in a manner similar to that observed in whales exposed at a closer distance (Western Geophysical, 2000). In three studies of bowhead whales and one of gray whales during this period, surfacing-dive cycles were unusually rapid in the presence of seismic noise, with fewer breaths per surfacing and longer intervals between breaths (Richardson *et al.* , 1986; Koski and Johnson, 1987; Ljungblad *et al.* , 1988; Malme *et al.* , 1988). This pattern of subtle effects was evident among bowheads 6 km to at least 73 km (3.7 to 45.3 mi) from seismic vessels. However, in the pre-1996 studies, active avoidance usually was not apparent unless the seismic vessel was closer than about 6 to 8 km (3.7 to 5.0 mi)(Western Geophysical, 2000). Results from the 1996-1998 BP and Western Geophysical seismic program monitoring in the Beaufort Sea indicate that most migrating bowheads deflected seaward to avoid an area within about 20 km (12.4 mi) of an active nearshore seismic operation, with the exception of a few closer sightings when there was an island or very shallow water between the seismic operations and the whales (Miller *et al.* , 1998, 1999). The available data do not provide an unequivocal estimate of the distance at which approaching bowheads begin to deflect, but this may be on the order of 35 km (21.7 mi). It is also uncertain how far beyond (west of) the seismic operation the seaward deflection persists (Miller *et al.* , 1999). Although very few bowheads approached within 20 km (12.4 mi) of the operating seismic vessel, the number of bowheads sighted within that area returned to normal within 12-24 hours after the airgun operations ended (Miller *et al.* , 1999). Inupiat whalers believe that migrating bowheads are sometimes displaced at distances considerably greater than suggested by pre-1996 scientific studies (Rexford, 1996) previously mentioned in this document. Also, whalers believe that avoidance effects can extend out to distances on the order of 30 miles (48.3 km), and that bowheads exposed to seismic also are “skittish” and more difficult to approach. The “skittish” behavior may be related to the observed subtle changes in the behavior of bowheads exposed to seismic pulses from distant seismic vessels (Richardson *et al.* , 1986). Gray Whales The reactions of gray whales to seismic pulses are similar to those documented for bowheads during the 1980s. Migrating gray whales along the California coast were noted to slow their speed of swimming, turn away from seismic noise sources, and increase their respiration rates. Malme *et al.* (1983, 1984, 1988) concluded that approximately 50 percent of the migrating gray whales showed avoidance when the average received pulse level was 170 dB (re 1 μPa). By some behavioral measures, clear effects were evident at average pulse levels of 160+dB; less consistent results were suspected at levels of 140-160 dB. Recent research on migrating gray whales showed responses similar to those observed in the earlier research when the source was moored in the migration corridor 2 km (1.2 mi) from shore. However, when the source was placed offshore (4 km (2.5 mi) from shore) of the migration corridor, the avoidance response was not evident on track plots (Tyack and Clark, 1998). Beluga The beluga is the only species of toothed whale (Odontoceti) expected to be encountered in the Beaufort Sea. Belugas have poor hearing thresholds at frequencies below 200 Hz, where most of the energy from airgun arrays is concentrated. Their thresholds at these frequencies (as measured in a captive situation), are 125 dB re 1 μPa or more depending upon frequency (Johnson *et al.* , 1989). Although not expected to be significantly affected by the noise, given the high source levels of seismic pulses, airgun sounds sometimes may be audible to beluga at distances of 100 km (62.1 mi)(Richardson and Wursig, 1997), and perhaps further if actual low-frequency hearing thresholds in the open sea are better than those measured in captivity (Western Geophysical, 2000). The reaction distance for beluga, although presently unknown, is expected to be less than that for bowheads, given the presumed poorer sensitivity of belugas than that of bowheads for low-frequency sounds (Western Geophysical, 2000). Ringed, Largha and Bearded Seals No detailed studies of reactions by seals to noise from open water seismic exploration have been published (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). However, there are some data on the reactions of seals to various types of impulsive sounds (LGL and Greeneridge, 1997, 1998, 1999a; J. Parsons as quoted in Greene, *et al.* 1985; Anon., 1975; Mate and Harvey, 1985). These studies indicate that ice seals typically either tolerate or habituate to seismic noise produced from open water sources. Underwater audiograms have been obtained using behavioral methods for three species of phocinid seals, ringed, harbor, and harp seals ( *Pagophilus groenlandicus* ). These audiograms were reviewed in Richardson *et al.*
(1995)and Kastak and Schusterman (1998). Below 30-50 kHz, the hearing threshold of phocinids is essentially flat, down to at least 1 kHz, and ranges between 60 and 85 dB (re 1 microPa @ 1 m). There are few data on hearing sensitivity of phocinid seals below 1 kHz. NMFS considers harbor seals to have a hearing threshold of 70-85 dB at 1 kHz (60 FR 53753, October 17, 1995), and recent measurements for a harbor seal indicate that, below 1 kHz, its thresholds deteriorate gradually to 97 dB (re 1 microPa @ 1 m) at 100 Hz (Kastak and Schusterman, 1998). While no detailed studies of reactions of seals from open-water seismic exploration have been published (Richardson *et al.* , 1991, 1995), some data are available on the reactions of seals to various types of impulsive sounds (see LGL and Greeneridge, 1997, 1998, 1999a; Thompson *et al.* 1998). These references indicate that it is unlikely that pinnipeds would be harassed or injured by low frequency sounds from a seismic source unless they were within relatively close proximity of the seismic array. For permanent injury, pinnipeds would likely need to remain in the high-noise field for extended periods of time. Existing evidence also suggests that, while seals may be capable of hearing sounds from seismic arrays, they appear to tolerate intense pulsatile sounds without known effect once they learn that there is no danger associated with the noise (see, for example, NMFS/Washington Department of Wildlife, 1995). In addition, they will apparently not abandon feeding or breeding areas due to exposure to these noise sources (Richardson *et al.* , 1991) and may habituate to certain noises over time. Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected to Be Exposed to Seismic Noise The methodology used by Shell to estimate incidental take by Level B harassment, at sound pressure levels at 160 dB or above, by seismic and the numbers of marine mammals that might be affected during the proposed seismic acquisition area in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas are presented in the application. Subsequent to submission of that application, Shell decided to provide more conservative estimates of potential marine mammal exposures by using the JASCO model. Therefore, Tables 1 and 2 provide exposure calculations for both sets of calculations. NMFS proposes to use the more conservative estimates of noise exposure to determine impacts to marine mammals. EN03MY06.000 EN03MY06.001 The density estimates for the species covered under this IHA are based on the estimates developed by LGL (2005). The LGL density estimates are based on the original data from Moore *et al.*
(2000)on summering bowhead, gray, and beluga whales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and relevant studies on ringed seal estimates, including Stirling *et al.*
(1982)and Kingsley (1986). In its application, Shell provides estimates of the number of potential “exposures” to sound levels greater than 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)and greater than 170 dB. Shell states that while the 160-dB criterion is applied for estimating Level B harassment of all species of cetaceans and pinnipeds, Shell believes that a 170-dB criterion should be considered appropriate for estimating Level B harassment of delphinid cetaceans and pinnipeds, which tend to be less responsive, whereas the 160-dB criterion is considered appropriate for other cetaceans (LGL, 2005). However, NMFS has noted in the past that there is no empirical evidence to indicate that some delphinid species do not respond at the lower level (i.e., 160 dB). As a result, NMFS proposes to use the 160-dB isopleth to estimate the numbers of marine mammals that may be taken by Level B harassment. The estimates in Tables 1 and 2 are based on marine mammal exposures to 160 dB (and greater) from either approximately 5,556 km (3452 mi) of seismic surveys in three distinct areas of the eastern- and mid-Beaufort Sea and a similar level of effort in the Chukchi Sea or approximately 11,112 km (6905 mi) only in the Chukchi Sea if seismic work in the Beaufort Sea is not undertaken. These latter calculations are provided in the last column of Table 2. There will be no site clearance work performed for the seismic activities in the Chukchi Sea, therefore, potential taking estimates only include noise disturbance from the use of airguns. It is assumed that, during simultaneous operations of those additional sound sources and the airgun(s), any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the sonars or pinger would already be affected by the airgun(s). Exposure Calculations for Cetaceans and Pinnipeds The number of exposures of a particular species to sound levels between 160 dB and 180 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)was calculated by multiplying:
(1)the expected species density (i.e., average and maximum), as shown in Tables 1 and 2;
(2)the anticipated total line-kilometers of operations with the three 1,049-in 3 subarrays ( *i.e.* , 5556 km (3452 mi)); and
(3)the cross-track distances within which received sound levels are predicted to be between 160 and 180 dB (Figure 6-1 and Table 6-3 in the Shell application). Chukchi Sea Shell estimates that the average and maximum numbers of bowhead whales that may be exposed to noise levels of 160 dB or greater are 808 and 3226, respectively. However, according to Shell, the proposed seismic activities would occur when bowheads are widely distributed and would be expected to occur in very low numbers within the seismic activity area. Therefore, based on the 160-dB threshold criterion, the number of bowhead whales that may be exposed to sounds at or greater than 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)represent a small percent of the estimated population within the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Gray and beluga whales also have the potential for exposure, particularly near Area 3. The average and maximum estimates of the number of exposures at or greater than 160 dB are revised as 284 and 1128 for gray whales, 214 and 851 for beluga whales, 10 for killer whales, and 10 and 13 for harbor porpoises. While no reliable abundance numbers currently exist for ringed, spotted, and bearded seals for the Chukchi Sea, however, the potential number of exposures would be a very small fraction of earlier abundance estimates as shown in Table 2. For both cetaceans and pinnipeds likely to be encountered within the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea activity areas, the short-term exposures to airgun sounds are not expected to result in any long-term negative consequences for the individuals or their populations. Furthermore, the estimated number of animals potentially exposed and requested under an IHA, will be likely be much less for some species (e.g., bowhead whale) because of the period of seismic acquisition, and the survey and mitigation plan which contains efforts to further avoid take. Beaufort Sea As indicated in Table 1 in this document, the estimated average and maximum numbers for bowhead whales at 160 dB or greater are 395 and 1579, respectively. However, as stated earlier, proposed activities would occur mainly when bowheads are not present in the area or in very low numbers. Gray and beluga whales also have the potential for exposure, particularly near seismic survey area 3. The average and maximum estimates of the number of exposures for gray whales are 278 and 1104, and 210 and 833 for beluga whales. Ringed seals would be the most prevalent marine mammal species encountered at each of the three proposed seismic acquisition areas, and would account for most of the marine mammals that might be exposed to seismic sounds equal to or greater than 160 dB. Potential exposure estimates for pinnipeds in the Beaufort Sea are shown in Table 1. However, as Moulton and Lawson
(2002)indicated that most pinnipeds exposed to seismic sounds lower than 170 dB do not visibly react, pinnipeds are not likely to react to seismic sounds unless they are greater than 170 dB re 1 microPa (rms). As a result, NMFS believes that these exposure estimates are very conservative. Spotted and bearded seals may be encountered in much small numbers than ringed seals, but also have the potential for some minor exposure. Finally, if Shell does not conduct seismic survey work in the Beaufort Sea in 2006, and implements scenario 2 as mentioned previously, Shell estimates that additional sound exposures would occur in the Chukchi Sea. These estimates are provided in the last column of Table 2. Potential Impact of the Activity on the Affected Species or Stocks According to Shell, the only anticipated impacts to marine mammals associated with noise propagation from vessel movement, seismic airgun operations and seabed profiling and coring work (in the Beaufort Sea) would be the temporary and short term displacement of seals and whales from within ensonified zones produced by such noise sources. Any impacts on the whale and seal populations of the Chukchi Sea seismic acquisition activity area are believed to be short term and transitory arising from the temporary displacement of individuals or small groups from locations they may occupy at the times they are exposed to seismic sounds at the 160-190 db received levels. In the case of bowhead whales that displacement might well take the form of a deflection of the swim paths of migrating bowheads away from (seaward of) received noise levels less than 160 db (Richardson *et al.* , 1999). The cited and other studies conducted to test the hypothesis of the deflection response of bowheads have determined that bowheads return to the swim paths they were following at relatively short distances after their exposure to the received sounds. There is no evidence that bowheads so exposed have incurred injury to their auditory mechanisms. Additionally, there is no conclusive evidence that exposure to sounds exceeding 160 db have displaced bowheads from feeding activity (Richardson and Thomson [eds], 2002). As noted previously, it is highly unlikely that animals will be exposed to sounds of such intensity and duration as to physically damage their auditory mechanisms. There is no evidence that seals are more than temporarily displaced from ensonified zones and no evidence that seals have experienced physical damage to their auditory mechanisms even within ensonified zones. Potential Impact On Habitat Shell states that the proposed seismic activities will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, or to their prey sources. Seismic activities will occur during the time of year when bowhead whales are widely distributed and would be expected to occur in very low numbers within the seismic activity area (mid- to late-June through July and again from mid-October through November). The northeastern-most of the recurring feeding areas is in the northeastern Chukchi Sea southwest of Barrow. Any effects would be temporary and of short duration at any one place. The primary potential impacts to marine mammals associated with elevated sound levels from the proposed airguns were discussed previously in this document. A broad discussion on the various types of potential effects of exposure to seismic on fish and invertebrates can be found in LGL (2005; University of Alaska-Fairbanks Seismic Survey across Arctic Ocean at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#iha* ), and includes a summary of direct mortality (pathological/ physiological) and indirect (behavioral) effects. Mortality to fish, fish eggs and larvae from seismic energy sources would be expected within a few meters (0.5 to 3 m (1.6 to 9.8 ft)) from the seismic source. Direct mortality within 48 hours has been observed in cod and plaice that were subjected to seismic pulses two meters from the source (Matishov, 1992), however other studies did not report any fish kills from seismic source exposure (La Bella *et al.* , 1996; IMG, 2002; Hassel *et al.* , 2003). To date, fish mortalities associated with normal seismic operations are thought to be slight. Saetre and Ona
(1996)modeled a worst-case mathematical approach on the effects of seismic energy on fish eggs and larvae, and concluded that mortality rates caused by exposure to seismic are so low compared to natural mortality that issues relating to stock recruitment should be regarded as insignificant. Limited studies on physiological effects on marine fish and invertebrates to acoustic stress have been conducted. No significant increases in physiological stress from seismic energy were detected for various fish, squid, and cuttlefish (McCauley *et al.* , 2000) or in male snow crabs (Christian *et al.* , 2003). Behavioral changes in fish associated with seismic exposures are expected to be minor at best. Because only a small portion of the available foraging habitat would be subjected to seismic pulses at a given time, fish would be expected to return to the area of disturbance anywhere from 15-30 minutes (McCauley *et al.* , 2000) to several days (Engas *et al.* , 1996). Available data indicate that mortality and behavioral changes do occur within very close range to the seismic source, however, the proposed seismic acquisition activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas are predicted by Shell to have a negligible effect to the prey resource of the various life stages of fish and invertebrates available to marine mammals occurring during the project's duration. The total footprint of the proposed seismic survey area covers approximately 378,000 acres in the Chukchi Sea and 717,000 acres in the Beaufort Sea. The effects of the planned seismic activity at each of the seismic locations on marine mammal habitats and food resources are expected to be negligible, as described. It is estimated that only a small portion of the animals utilizing the areas of the proposed activities would be temporarily displaced. During the period of seismic acquisition in the Chukchi Sea (mid-June through July, and again in early- to mid-October through November, 2006), most marine mammals would be dispersed throughout the area. The peak of the west- and south-bound bowhead whale migration through the Chukchi Sea typically occurs in October, and efforts to reduce potential impacts to subsistence hunting during this time will be addressed with the actual start of the migration and with the whaling communities. The timing of seismic activities in the Chukchi Sea will take place when the whales are widely distributed and would be expected to occur in very low numbers within the seismic activity area. Starting in late August bowheads may travel in proximity to the aforementioned activity area and hear sounds from vessel traffic and seismic activities, of which some might be displaced seaward by the planned activities. The numbers of cetaceans and pinnipeds subject to displacement are small in relation to abundance estimates for the mammals covered under this proposed IHA. In addition, feeding does not appear to be an important activity by bowheads migrating through the Chukchi Sea or the eastern and central part of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in most years (Shell, 2005). Sightings of bowhead whales occur in the summer near Barrow (Moore and DeMaster, 2000) and there are suggestions that certain areas near Barrow are important feeding grounds. In addition, a few bowheads can be found in the Chukchi and Bering Seas during the summer and Rugh *et al.*
(2003)suggest that this may be an expansion of the western Arctic stock, although more research is needed. In the absence of important feeding areas, the potential diversion of a small number of bowheads away from seismic activities is not expected to have any significant or long-term consequences for individual bowheads or their population. As a result, Shell believes the proposed activities are not expected to have any habitat-related effects that would produce long-term effects to marine mammals or their habitat due to the limited extent of the acquisition areas and timing of the activities. Effects of Seismic Noise and Other Activities on the Availability of Marine Mammals for Subsistence Uses The disturbance and potential displacement of marine mammals by sounds from seismic activities are the principal concerns related to subsistence use of the area. The harvest of marine mammals (mainly bowhead whales, but also ringed and bearded seals) is central to the culture and subsistence economies of the coastal North Slope and Western Alaskan communities. In particular, if migrating bowhead whales are displaced farther offshore by elevated noise levels, the harvest of these whales could be more difficult and dangerous for hunters. The harvest could also be affected if bowheads become more skittish when exposed to seismic noise. Hunters related how whales also appear “angry” due to seismic noise, making whaling more dangerous. In the Chukchi Sea, Shell seismic work should not have significant adverse impacts on the availability of the whale species for subsistence uses. The whale species normally taken by Inupiat hunters are the bowhead and belugas. Shell's Chukchi seismic operations will not begin until after July 1, 2006 at which time the majority of bowheads will have migrated to their summer feeding areas in Canada. In the event any bowheads remain in the northeastern Chukchi Sea after July 1, they are not normally hunted after this date until the return migration occurs around late September when a fall hunt by Barrow whalers takes place. In the past few years, a small number of bowheads have also been taken by coastal villages along the Chukchi coast. Seismic operations for phase two of the Chukchi program will be timed and located so as to avoid any possible conflict with the Barrow fall whaling, and specific provisions governing the timing and location matters addressed here will be incorporated in the CAA established between Shell and WesternGeco, the AEWC, and the Barrow Whaling Captains Association. Beluga whales may also be taken sporadically for subsistence needs by coastal villages, but traditionally are taken in small numbers very near the coast. As the seismic surveys will be conducted at least 12 miles (25 km) offshore, impacts to subsistence uses of bowheads are not anticipated. However, Shell plans to establish “communication stations” in the villages to monitoring impacts. Gray whales, which will be abundant in the northern Chukchi Sea from spring through autumn, are not taken by subsistence hunters. The various pinniped species, including walrus, are all taken by subsistence hunters of the Chukchi villages (Barrow, Wainwright, Pt Lay, Pt Hope). The planned seismic operations will not adversely affect the usual open-water locations of these species and no haul-out areas will be encountered (with the possible exception of the polar ice front used by walrus, which is under the jurisdiction of the USFWS). However, most seismic operations will take place sufficiently distant from nearshore traditional beluga, seal, and walrus hunting areas such that no unmitigable adverse impacts are anticipated. In the Beaufort Sea, there could be an adverse impact on the Inupiat bowhead subsistence hunt if the whales were deflected seaward (further from shore) in traditional hunting areas. The impact would be that whaling crews would necessarily be forced to travel greater distances to intercept westward migrating whales thereby creating a safety hazard for whaling crews and/or limiting chances of successfully striking and landing bowheads. This potential impact will be mitigated by application of the procedures established in the CAA between the seismic operators and the AEWC and the whaling captains' associations of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut and Barrow. The times and locations of seismic and other noise producing sources will be curtailed during times of active scouting and whaling within the traditional subsistence hunting areas of the three potentially affected communities. (Shell, 2005). Plan of Cooperation Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a plan of cooperation
(POC)or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize any adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. Shell's POC notes that negotiations were initiated beginning in summer of 2005 with the AEWC to create a CAA between Shell and WesternGeco for 2006, and the subsistence hunting communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. The CAA will cover both the proposed Beaufort Sea seismic program (including deep seismic, site clearance, shallow hazard surveys and a geotechnical seabed coring program) and the Chukchi Sea deep seismic survey. Meetings between Shell and the AEWC began in October, 2005 with representatives of the North Slope Borough also present in Fairbanks during the annual meeting of the Alaska Federation of Natives. Additional meetings were held this spring. Shell anticipates signing the CAA sometime this spring. The CAA will incorporate all appropriate measures and procedures regarding the timing and areas of Shell's planned activities (i.e., times and places where seismic operations will be curtailed or moved in order to avoid potential conflicts with active subsistence whaling and sealing); communications system between operator's vessels and whaling and hunting crews (i.e., the communications center will be located in Deadhorse with links to Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Cross Island, and Barrow); provision for marine mammal observers/Inupiat communicators aboard all project vessels; conflict resolution procedures; and provisions for rendering emergency assistance to subsistence hunting crews. If requested, post-season meetings will also be held to assess the effectiveness of the 2006 CAA, to address how well conflicts (if any) were resolved; and to receive recommendations on any changes (if any) might be needed in the implementation of future CAAs. It is anticipated that a final draft of the 2006 CAA for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas will be available for consideration and review by NMFS and the MMS by late spring. Proposed Mitigation Measures Shell has proposed five main mitigation measures:
(1)The timing and locations for active seismic acquisition work will be scheduled to curtail operations when whaling captains inform the operator that they are scouting or hunting within traditional hunting areas;
(2)the configuration of airguns in a manner that directs energy primarily down to the seabed thus decreasing the range of horizontal spreading of seismic noise;
(3)the use of a seismic energy source which is as small as possible while still accomplishing the geophysical objectives;
(4)the use of ramp-up and soft start methods of initiating seismic operations which is intended to alert any marine mammals either within or approaching an operating airgun array so that they may swim away from the source; and
(5)the curtailment of active seismic work when the marine mammal observers
(MMOs)visually sight (from shipboard or aerially) the presence of marine mammals within identified ensonified zones. Details of the proposed mitigation measures follow: *Seasonal Restrictions:* Shell has proposed to take all practicable measures to complete seismic operations as early as possible and to vacate areas within close proximity of subsistence bowhead hunting areas during periods of hunting activity. During periods of hunting activity, seismic operations will be moved to areas remote from hunting operations or ceased for a period. From August 15 until the end of the bowhead hunting season (or until the end of seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea) special monitoring and mitigation/mitigation measures will be adopted ( *i.e.* , aerial surveys). Given the potential for diversion offshore, re-initiation of seismic operations within identified hunting areas will proceed only after the affected village(s) has acquired at least two whales or ceased hunting activities and only with close coordination with representatives of the whaling captains. All reasonable efforts will be made to avoid disruption of the hunt or deflection of migrating bowheads in hunting areas. *Aerial Surveys:* Shell proposes to conduct aerial surveys of the Beaufort Sea regional distribution and abundance of marine mammals with special attention to bowhead whales in 2006 prior to the initiation of the seismic survey starts and periodically during and after the survey. The objectives of the Beaufort Sea aerial surveys are to:
(a)Provide real-time or near real-time information that can be used (if appropriate) to alter the survey's starting point and survey line sequence based on the actual distribution of whales in the area immediately prior to and during surveys (see below),
(b)Document the numbers of whales in the general area and, at least theoretically, exposed to noise from seismic survey and their responses to the surveys (if detectable), and
(c)Conduct aerial surveys only when they can be carried out in a safe manner and during periods of good visibility where there is sufficient probability of detecting bowhead whales and other marine mammals. Beginning at least 3 days prior to the beginning of seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea, aerial surveys will be conducted on a daily basis, when practicable given weather and visibility conditions. Aerial surveys conducted during the bowhead whaling season will be coordinated with whaling efforts, such that airplanes operating in close proximity to whalers can take action, e.g. flying at higher altitudes, to reduce the potential to impact the hunt. Generally, the flight plan and coverage of the aerial survey will be conducted following established standards and methodologies, as described above, with particular reference to MMS Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Program (BWASP) procedures. Specific details of the flight pattern and coverage will be fully developed in an aerial flight operations plan but will be subject to operation changes as needed to provide effective coverage during field operations. *Airgun Arrays:* For the proposed seismic survey, Shell proposes to:
(a)Configure the airgun array to maximize the proportion of the energy that is directed downward and to minimize horizontal sound propagation. In particular, closely spaced airguns whose overall radiation pattern is nearly omni-directional will be avoided. The size of the airgun arrays, as measured by the source level, will not be any larger than required to meet the technical objectives for the seismic survey.
(b)Utilize pre-initiation modeling, based upon anticipated sound propagation characteristics of the array, to establish anticipated impact zones of 180 dB and 190 dB.
(c)Conduct field sound propagation assessments at the initiation of the field season and 180 dB and 190 dB zones adjusted accordingly. *Ramp-up (soft-start):* For the proposed seismic survey, Shell proposes to implement the following 'soft start' procedures:
(a)The seismic operator will ramp-up airguns slowly over a period of 20 minutes each time shooting begins or whenever the, shut-down period has been greater than 10 minutes. 'Soft starts' will follow every interruption of the airgun array firing that is greater than 10 minutes, most importantly if the survey is discontinued until marine mammals leave the safety zone. The seismic operator and MMOs will maintain records of the times when ramp-ups start, and when the airgun array reaches full power.
(b)During periods of turn around and transit between seismic transects, one airgun will remain operational. Through use of this approach, seismic operations can resume upon entry to a new transect without full ramp up. While it is routine to ramp up from a single gun firing to full array operation, operation of a single gun allows starting during poor visibility and ramp up without a period of static visual observation.
(c)If shut down occurs, ramp-up will begin only following a minimum of a 30-min period of observation of the prescribed safety zone to assure that no marine mammals are present. However, if the MMOs were on-duty prior to the shut-down, and continued their observations during the shut-down, then an additional 30-min period of observation prior to ramp-up is not necessary. Ramp-up procedures will be followed until full operating intensity is achieved. *Safety Zones:* For the proposed seismic survey, Shell proposes to implement the following measures:
(a)Initial safety zones will be established prior to the survey based on available data and modelling concerning sound output and on the assumption that seismic pulses at broadband received levels above 190 dB re 1 microPa (rms over duration of pulse) for pinnipeds, or above 180 dB re 1 microPa rms for cetaceans, should be avoided whenever possible because those levels might affect hearing abilities at least temporarily. The sound levels are based on frequencies between 10 Hz and 120 Hz, the typical peak spectrum of sound emitted for seismic surveys.
(b)The safety distances will be verified (and if necessary adjusted) during the first week of the seismic survey, based on direct measurements via calibrated hydrophones of the received levels of underwater sound versus distance and direction from the airgun array. The acoustic data will be analyzed as quickly as reasonably practicable in the field and used to adjust safety distance. The same acoustic data will be useful in interpreting observations of marine mammals during analysis of sighting data after the programs completion (see below). *Biological Observers:* For the proposed seismic survey, Shell proposes to implement the following measures:
(a)Trained marine mammal observers on the seismic ship will be on watch for marine mammals during all daylight hours when seismic operations are in progress. This will require at least three and preferably four observers on the vessel, given that observer efficiency deteriorates after approximately 4 hours, and that having two observers on watch simultaneously increases the probability of sighting the marine mammals present near the vessel. In selecting seismic vessels for the program, Shell has accounted for the requirement to accommodate 3 to 4 marine mammal observers on each vessel.
(b)The purpose of the observers on the seismic vessel will primarily be to document the occurrence and responses of marine mammals visible from the vessel, and to initiate airgun shutdown requirements whenever a marine mammal is observed within the safety zone. Furthermore, the observers will attempt to confirm the absence of marine mammals in the safety zones prior to 'soft start'.
(c)When a marine mammal is sighted within, or approaching, the safety zone around the airgun array, the observers will notify the seismic contractor who will shut down the airguns. After completion of the survey, a technical report and a scientific research paper will be prepared to summarize the observations, results, and conclusions of the marine mammal monitoring program. *Operations at Night and in Poor Visibility:* For the proposed seismic programs in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, Shell proposes the following measures:
(a)When operating under conditions of reduced visibility attributable to darkness or to adverse weather conditions, infra-red or night-vision binoculars will be available for use. It is recognized, however, that their effectiveness for this application is very limited even in clear night time conditions.
(b)Seismic activities will not be initiated during darkness or during conditions when visibility is reduced to less than the radius of the safety zone. Shell proposes that if a single small airgun remains firing during a shut-down, the rest of the array can be ramped up during darkness or in periods of low visibility. Seismic operations may continue under conditions of darkness or reduced visibility unless, in the judgement of the senior MMO, densities of endangered cetaceans in the general area are high enough to warrant concern that an endangered cetacean is likely to enter the safety zone undetected. In that case, observers will advise the ship's captain or his designee to halt airgun operations or to move to a part of the survey area where visibility is adequate or where the likelihood of encountering an endangered cetacean is low based on aerial and vessel based surveys that would be part of the real-time monitoring program. Mitigation for Subsistence Needs Although not discussed in detail by Shell, NMFS must make a determination that an activity would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses. While this includes both cetaceans and pinnipeds, the primary impact by seismic activities on subsistence hunting is expected to be impacts from noise on bowhead whales during its westward fall feeding and migration period in the Beaufort Sea. NMFS has defined unmitigable adverse impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity:
(1)that is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by:
(i)causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas;
(ii)directly displacing subsistence users; or
(iii)placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and
(2)that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met (50 CFR 216.103). Discussions between the AEWC, the whaling captains and Shell continue at this time and results of those discussions will be reported in the final IHA notice. A signed CAA allows NMFS to make a determination that the activity will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the subsistence use of marine mammals. If one or both parties fail to sign the CAA, then NMFS will make the necessary determinations that the activity will or will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence use of marine mammals and NMFS may require that the IHA contain additional mitigation measures in order for this decision to be made. Proposed Monitoring As part of its application, Shell provided a monitoring plan for assessing impacts to marine mammals from seismic surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Shell proposes to conduct the following monitoring: Vessel-based Visual Monitoring Shell proposes that one or two marine mammal observers aboard the operating seismic vessel will search for and observe marine mammals whenever seismic operations are in progress and for at least 30 minutes before the planned start of seismic transmissions or whenever the seismic array's operations have been suspended for more than 10 minutes. These observers will scan the area immediately around the vessels with reticle binoculars during the daytime. Laser rangefinding equipment will be available to assist with distance estimation. After mid-August, when the duration of darkness increases, image intensifiers will be used by observers and additional light sources may be used to illuminate the safety zone. A total of four observers (three trained biologists and one Inupiat observer/communicator) will be based aboard the seismic vessel. The use of four observers allows two observers to be on duty simultaneously for up to 50 percent of the active airgun hours. The use of two observers increases the probability of detecting marine mammals, and two observers will be required to be on duty whenever the seismic array is ramped up. Individual watches will be limited to no more than 4 consecutive hours to avoid observer fatigue (and no more than 12 hours on watch per 24 hour day). When mammals are detected within or about to enter the safety zone designated to prevent injury to the animals (see Proposed Mitigation), the geophysical crew leader will be notified so that shutdown procedures can be implemented immediately. Aerial Surveys Shell proposes to conduct aerial surveys bi-weekly from the middle to the end of August, and daily (when possible due to weather) after September 1 st in the Beaufort Sea. At this time Shell does not propose to conduct aerial surveys in the Chukchi Sea. Aerial surveys in the Beaufort Sea are proposed to continue for three days after the cessation of seismic operations. Aerial surveys are typically conducted by teams of four observers (a pilot, two dedicated observers, and an observer/data recorder) in twin-engine airplanes. Observations are made at an altitude of 900 to 1,500 ft (274 to 457 m)and a ground speed of 120 knots (120 nm/hr; 138 statute mi (mi)/hr; 222 km/hr). Similar to previous Beaufort Sea aerial surveys, the survey plane will traverse a survey grid, centered on the seismic operations, which extends 50 to 75 km (31 to 46.6 mi) both east and west of the seismic operations and to 75 km (46.6 mi) offshore. Shell suggests that periodic flights that range further to the east may be utilized prior to the onset of migration to provide an early warning of the approach of migrating bowhead whales. However, NMFS proposes that if seismic work is suspended during the bowhead subsistence hunting season, but resumes later in the autumn, aerial surveys will commence (or resume) when the seismic work resumes. In addition, MMS expects to conduct its broad-scale BWASP aerial survey work from approximately August 31st until the end of the bowhead migration in October. NMFS believes that this combined aerial survey data will provide good information to estimate the number of bowheads taken by Level B harassment. The primary objective of the aerial surveys will be to document the occurrence, distribution, and movements of bowhead, as well as beluga and gray, whales in and near the area where they might be affected by the seismic pulses. These observations will be used to estimate the level of harassment takes and to assess the possibility that seismic operations affect the accessibility of bowhead whales for subsistence hunting. Pinnipeds will be recorded when seen, although survey altitude will be too high for systematic surveys of seals. Passive Acoustic Monitoring Shell is considering the possibility of using a towed hydrophone array or other passive acoustic technique to detect and perhaps locate marine mammals during this seismic project. Towed hydrophones that are part of the seismic array have the ability to detect marine mammals within close proximity of the array but generally do not provide accurate location information. Hydrophone technology utilizing fixed position hydrophones has been useful in locating bowhead whales through their vocalizations around the fixed BP NorthStar facility (Richardson, 2005), however, the proposed seismic operation will be far ranging and would require either an extensive array of fixed sonobuoys, or multiple “listening” vessels. The presence of “listening” vessels within the seismic project area would add significantly to the number of noise sources present and broaden the potential impact area. The use of aerial monitoring has demonstrated that bowheads avoid areas where active seismic operations are being conducted and is effective at documenting the extent of this impact. Aerial surveys can also provide early, near-real time, reconnaissance information as to presence or approach of marine mammals to areas of seismic operation. According to Shell, the use of real-time acoustic monitoring would, therefore, not add significantly to the information available to seismic operators but would add significantly to the complexity and potential area of impact of the project. As a result, while Shell's original application did not propose to use passive acoustical monitoring during either the Beaufort or Chukchi Sea seismic operations, the value of implementing a passive acoustic program was discussed at the recent Anchorage meeting. Accordingly, Shell is presently reviewing its earlier determination. NMFS scientists believe that incorporating either a towed passive array from the seismic vessel or one of the support vessels or installing a passive net array along the Chukchi Sea coast would add valuable information on the marine mammals in the area. Additional Proposed Mitigation and Monitoring Measures As part of NMFS' week-long open-water peer review meeting in Anchorage, on April 19-20, 2006, participants had a discussion on appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures for Arctic Ocean seismic activities in 2006. In addition to previously mentioned mitigation and monitoring measures proposed by Shell, the workshop participants recommended several monitoring measures to increase our knowledge of marine mammal distribution and abundance in the Chukchi Sea. These included use of passive acoustics, either towed from a vessel or set out in a series of arrays along the Chukchi Sea coast. As of the publication date of this notice, Shell is studying these recommendations and will inform NMFS prior to the close of the comment period on this document on any additional monitoring that would be conducted. In addition, NMFS proposes to impose additional mitigation and monitoring measures, such as expanded safety zones for bowhead and gray whales, and having those zones monitored effectively, in order to remain within the scope of the PEA and to increase the likelihood for NMFS and MMS to make a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Research Shell proposes to develop and implement a research component to its marine mammal monitoring program that would further improve the understanding of bowhead whale deflection related to industrial sound sources, most specifically the operation of seismic operations. A detailed study plan is being developed that will utilize data from aerial surveys, possibly combined with acoustic monitoring. That research plan will include: *Vessel-based Surveys:* Three MMOs will conduct observations onboard a dedicated vessel conducting three individual 2-3 day surveys early in the seismic season, in the middle of the season and late in the season, as well as opportunistic surveys while the vessel is being used for crew changes/supply runs. The survey will systematically cover broad areas of the Chukchi planning area in order to obtain adequate coverage across multiple habitat types (subject to vessel operational limitations near ice pack). The surveys will provide:
(1)quantitative data on distribution and densities for each marine mammal species by habitat (depth and ice);
(2)sighting data to compute densities during seismic and non seismic periods;
(3)density information during non-seismic periods to be used to estimate numbers of marine mammals that would have been exposed to various sound levels (160, 180, 190 dB re 1 microPa), if they had not moved away from the seismic vessel; and
(4)sighting and density information from operating seismic vessel will provide data on numbers that did not avoid the vessel and were exposed to the same sound levels. Reporting Shell proposes to submit a report to NMFS approximately 90 days after completion of the 2006 season and a final technical report approximately 240 days after completion of the 2006 season. The 90-day report will:
(1)present the results of the 2006 shipboard marine mammal monitoring;
(2)estimate exposure of marine mammals to industry sounds;
(3)provide data on marine mammal sightings (e.g., species, numbers, locations, age/size/gender, environmental correlates);
(4)analyze the effects of seismic operations (e.g., on sighting rates, sighting distances, behaviors, movement patterns);
(5)provide summaries of power downs, shut downs, and ramp up delays;
(6)provide an analysis of factors influencing detectability of marine mammals; and
(7)provide summaries on communications with hunters and potential effects on subsistence activities. NMFS proposes that the Final Technical Report will contain a cumulative analysis of the data and information of the 90-day report with similar data and information from other seismic activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in 2006. Endangered Species Act
(ESA)Under section 7 of the ESA, the MMS has begun consultation on the proposed seismic survey activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas during 2006. NMFS will also consult on the issuance of the IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to Shell for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of an IHA. NEPA The MMS has prepared a Draft PEA for the 2006 Arctic Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)Seismic Surveys. NMFS is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the Draft PEA. NMFS is reviewing this PEA and will either adopt it or prepare its own NEPA document before making a determination on the issuance of Arctic Ocean OCS seismic surveys in 2006. A copy of the MMS Draft PEA for this activity is available upon request and is available online (see ADDRESSES ). Preliminary Conclusions Summary Based on the information provided in Shell's application and the MMS PEA, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of Shell conducting seismic surveys in the northern Chukchi Sea and eastern and central Beaufort Sea in 2006 will have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammals and that there will not be any unmitigable adverse impacts to subsistence communities, provided the mitigation measures required under the authorization are implemented and a CAA is implemented. Potential Impacts on Marine Mammals NMFS has preliminarily determined that the relatively short-term impact of conducting seismic surveys in the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort seas may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain species of marine mammals. While behavioral and avoidance reactions may be made by these species in response to the resultant noise, this behavioral change is expected to have a negligible impact on the affected species and stocks of marine mammals. While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the area of seismic operations (as shown in Table 4-1 in the applications), which will vary annually due to variable ice conditions and other factors, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small (see Tables 1 and 2 in this document). In addition, no take by death or serious injury is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures proposed for Shell's IHA. This preliminary determination is supported by:
(1)the likelihood that, given sufficient notice through slow ship speed and ramp-up of the seismic array, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious;
(2)recent research that indicates that TTS is unlikely at SPLs as low as 180 dB re 1 microPa;(at least in delphinids);
(3)the fact that injurious levels would be very close to the vessel; and
(4)the likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is close to 100 percent during daytime and remains high at night close to the seismic vessel. Finally, no known rookeries, mating grounds, areas of concentrated feeding, or other areas of special significance for marine mammals are known to occur within or near the planned areas of operations during the season of operations. Potential Impacts on Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals Preliminarily, NMFS believes that the proposed seismic activity by Shell in the northern Chukchi Sea and central and eastern Beaufort Sea in 2006, in combination with other seismic and oil and gas programs in these areas, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the subsistence uses of bowhead whales and other marine mammals. This preliminary determination is supported by the following:
(1)Seismic activities in the Chukchi Sea will not begin until after July 10 by which time the spring bowhead hunt is expected to have ended;
(2)NMFS′ understanding that the fall bowhead whale hunt in the Beaufort Sea will be governed by a CAA between Shell and the AEWC and village whaling captains;
(3)although unknown at this time to NMFS, the CAA conditions will significantly reduce impacts on subsistence hunters;
(4)while it is possible that accessibility to belugas during the spring subsistence beluga hunt could be impaired by the survey, it is unlikely because very little of the proposed survey is within 25 km (15.5 mi) of the Chukchi coast, meaning the vessel will usually be well offshore and away from areas where seismic surveys would influence beluga hunting by communities; and
(5)because seals (ringed, spotted, bearded) are hunted in nearshore waters and the seismic survey will remain offshore of the coastal and nearshore areas of these seals where natives would harvest these seals, it should not conflict with harvest activities. Proposed Authorization As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Shell for conducting a seismic survey in the northern Chukchi Sea and central and eastern Beaufort Sea in 2006, provided the previously proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Information Solicited NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments and information concerning this request (see ADDRESSES ). Dated: April 28, 2006. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-4172 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 16
Traces to 16 documents
CFR
8 references not yet in our index
  • 374 F. Supp. 2d 1257
  • Pub. L. 89-651
  • 15 CFR 301
  • Pub. L. 97-290
  • 15 USC 4011-21
  • 15 CFR 325
  • 50 CFR 216.103
  • 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of revocation of Export Trade Certificate of Review Application No
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.303
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 351.214
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.402
Stat.Public Law 89–651
C.F.R.§ 301.5
F. Supp.374 F. Supp. 2d 1257
Pub. L.Pub. L. 89-651
Cite15 CFR 301
Cites 24 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.