Notices. Notice; proposed authorization for an incidental take authorization; request for comments
20,980 words·~95 min read·
/register/2007/01/05/06-9978A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-580-807) Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Polyethylene Terphthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216(b), DuPont Teijin Films (DuPont), Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. (Mitsubishi), and Toray Plastics (America) (Toray), Inc.
(collectively DuPont, Mitsubishi, and Toray are the Petitioners), filed a request for the Department to initiate a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from Korea. Petitioners allege that Kolon Industries Inc. (Kolon), a Korean PET film producer previously revoked from the antidumping duty order, has resumed selling subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV). Petitioners explain that Kolon has agreed in writing to reinstatement in the antidumping duty order if Kolon were found to have resumed dumping.
Petitioners contend that Kolon has violated its agreement not to sell PET film at prices below NV in the United States subsequent to Kolon's revocation from the order. Therefore, Petitioners request that the Department reinstate the antidumping duty order with respect to Kolon. Petitioners further request that the Department of Commerce (the Department) immediately order suspension of liquidation for all entries of Korean PET film manufactured and exported by Kolon. The Department finds the information submitted by Petitioners is sufficient to warrant initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea.
In this changed circumstances review, we will determine whether Kolon is selling PET film at less than NV subsequent to its revocation from the order. If we determine in this changed circumstances review that Kolon sold at less than NV and resumed dumping PET film, we will direct Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of Korean PET film manufactured and exported by Kolon. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4475 and
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 5, 1991, the Department published the antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea* , 56 FR 25660 (June 5, 1991) ( *Order* ). In June of 1995, in the course of the 1994 - 1995 administrative review, Kolon requested revocation of the *Order* with respect to its sales of subject merchandise. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film from Korea: Preliminary results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent to Revoke the Order in Part, and Termination in Part* , 61 FR 36032, 36033 (July 9, 1996). As part of its request for revocation, on June 28, 1996, Kolon agreed to immediate reinstatement in the *Order* pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b) of the regulations in effect at the time. 1 *See* Kolon's June 30, 1995 letter to the Department requesting revocation. In its revocation request, Kolon agreed to immediate reinstatement in the *Order* as long as any producer or reseller is subject to the order, should the Department determine that Kolon “sold polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from Korea at less than foreign market value.” *Id* . On November 14, 1996, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order with respect to Kolon after having determined that Kolon sold the merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of at least three consecutive years. 2 *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation in Part* , 61 FR 58374 (November 14, 1996) ( *Revocation* ). 1 As described more fully below, 19 CFR 353.25(b) has subsequently been superceded by 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B). However, the language in 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) is largely unchanged from 19 CFR 353.25(b). 2 The three administrative reviews forming the basis of the revocation are the June 1,1992 through May 31, 1993 review; the June 1, 1993 through May 31, 1994 review; and the June 1, 1994 through May 31, 1995 review. The final results of the June 1992 through May 31, 1993 and the June 1993 through May 31, 1994 administrative reviews of Kolon were published on July 5, 1996. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation in Part* 61 FR 35177, July 5, 1996 (second and third administrative reviews). The final results of the June 1,1994 through May 31,1995 administrative review of Kolon were published on November 14, 1996. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation in Part* 61 FR 58374 (November 14, 1996) (fourth administrative review). On July 19, 2006, Petitioners submitted an allegation (accompanied by the supporting documentation summarized below) suggesting Kolon has resumed dumping PET film in the United States since revocation in part from of the *Order* , and requested a changed circumstances review. *See* Petitioners' July 19, 2006 letter to the Department. Petitioners requested that the Department reinstate the *Order* with respect to Kolon's exports to the United States of PET film produced by Kolon. Petitioners also requested that the Department immediately order suspension of liquidation for all entries of Korean PET film manufactured and exported by Kolon. *Id* . On August 4, 2006, Kolon filed a letter contesting Petitioner's request for a changed circumstances review. *See* Kolon's August 4, 2006 comments. Kolon asserted that section 751(b) of the Act, the statutory provision governing changed circumstance reviews, does not cover an attempt to reinstate a revoked company into an antidumping duty order. Kolon further argued that the reinstatement provisions in effect when Kolon was revoked were impeached by *Asahi Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. v. United States* , 727 F. Supp. 625 (CIT 1989) ( *Asahi* ). Kolon asserted the Department's “new” regulations promulgated on May 19, 1997, codified at 19 CFR section 351, constituted a failed “fix” of the Department's invalid reinstatement procedures in response to *Asahi* . See Kolon's August 2006 Comments at 6. Kolon also noted the Department's current regulations governing revocation came into effect in 1997, which was subsequent to Kolon's revocation. Kolon thus argued that the Department cannot rely on these 1997 regulations to remedy the earlier flaws identified by the Court in *Asahi* . Finally, Kolon insisted that during the history of the antidumping duty order, the company had never itself been found to be dumping. Kolon asserted the 0.60 percent margin that the Department determined for Kolon in the first administrative review, the sole above *de minimis* margin found for Kolon, was based upon an incorrect method for adjusting for home market value added taxes. *See Polyethylene Terephthate Film, Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 60 FR 42835 (August 17, 1995), amended by *Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 5375 (February 12, 1996) (finding a margin of 0.60 percent for Kolon for the period November 30, 1990 through May 31, 1992). Kolon noted the Department determined *de minimis* margins for the three subsequent reviews, and asserted the margin for the first administrative review would also have been *de minimis* had the Department completed a pending remand of this review. Kolon maintained that it agreed to dismiss its court action contesting the results of the first administrative review “subject to the explicit condition that its agreement to withdraw the appeal not be deemed an admission that Kolon had been dumping in the first administrative review.” *Id* . at 9. On August 14, 2006, Petitioners filed rebuttal comments to Kolon's August 4, 2006 comments. Petitioners asserted that a changed circumstances request is the proper venue for considering whether a revoked company should be reinstated within the scope of an order. Petitioners argued that a reinstatement request is “a review of a final affirmative determination that resulted in an antidumping order,” and that the “identities of the producers and exporters who are subject to the order is part and parcel of that affirmative determination.” Petitioners' August 14, 2006 comments at 3. Additionally, Petitioners accused Kolon of “misinterpreting” *Asahi* , explaining that *Asahi* dealt with the Department's earlier 1980 regulations. *Id* . at 5. Petitioners argued that the March 1989 regulations in effect when Kolon signed its agreement to reinstatement fully addressed the concerns the Court expressed in *Asahi* . Petitioners asserted the Court's concerns are addressed because reinstatement will only occur if: 1) a producer or reseller is still subject to the order, 2) if a revoked respondent “sold the merchandise at less than foreign market value”, and 3) where an order has been revoked in part. Petitioners thus maintained the revised March 1989 regulations applicable when the Department revoked the order with respect to Kolon cured the flaws identified in *Asahi* and are thus valid. Moreover, Petitioners insisted that the 1997 regulations adopted by the Department “in connection with the Uruguay Round Agreements Act did not alter the revocation and reinstatement provisions of the March 1989 regulations in any material way.” *Id* . at 7. Accordingly, Petitioners asserted Kolon's suggestion that the 1997 regulations somehow constitute a failed “fix"of the reinstatement procedures is misplaced. Finally, Petitioners characterized Kolon's argument concerning whether it was ever found to be dumping as a “red herring.” *Id* . at 10. Petitioners suggested Kolon's assertion that it did not dump PET film during the first administrative review is immaterial. Petitioners argued that the controlling issue is that Kolon signed a “certification that contained a reinstatement agreement and that the Department revoked the order with respect to the company based on that certification.” *Id* . Moreover, Petitioners asserted that even had the Department concluded that the margin for Kolon for the November 1, 1990 through March 31, 1992 review was *de minimis* , the reinstatement agreement is still legally binding because Kolon of its own volition signed the reinstatement agreement. Allegation of Resumed Dumping On September 20, 2006, we sent a letter to Petitioners requesting additional information concerning the U.S., home market and cost data provided by Petitioners in their July 19, 2006 submission. Petitioners provided their response on October 5, 2006. On November 1, 2006, we requested additional information from Petitioners concerning their submissions of July 19, 2006 and October 5, 2006. Petitioners submitted their response to our second request for additional information on November 9, 2006. In their July 19, 2006, October 5, 2006 and November 9, 2006 submissions, Petitioners provided price quotes concerning Kolon's sales activity in the U.S. and home market and argued that Kolon had sold PET film at less than NV during the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. Petitioners also provided cost data in these submissions suggesting Kolon made home market sales at prices below the cost of production (COP). The allegation of resumed dumping upon which the Department has based its decision to initiate a changed circumstances review is detailed below. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to NV and U.S. price are discussed in greater detail in the *Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist* dated concurrently with this notice. Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may reexamine the information and revise the margin calculation, if appropriate. 1. Export Price
(EP)Petitioners based their calculation of U.S. price upon price quotes they obtained for three types of PET film commonly sold in the United States. In their July 19, 2006 submission, Petitioners made a deduction to EP for international freight and insurance, U.S. duties, and U.S. inland freight. Petitioners also made a downward adjustment to U.S. price for slitting costs and material losses. Petitioners provided price quotes to end-users. To approximate a price to distributors, Petitioners made a deduction from EP to approximate the distributor's mark-up. In their November 9, 2006 submission, Petitioners provided first-person affidavits from the individuals who collected the price quotes referenced in Petitioners' July 19, 2006 submission. Also, Petitioners removed the deduction for slitting costs from their calculation of EP in their November 9, 2006 calculation of U.S. price. 2. Normal Value To calculate NV, Petitioners provided in their July 19, 2006 submission information on Kolon's pricing of PET film in the Korean market. This information was obtained through a Korean manufacturer of PET film and covered sales of three types of PET film commonly offered for sale by Kolon in the Korean market. The Korean pricing information covered the same types of PET film as those serving as the basis for EP. In their July 19, 2006 submission, Petitioners made a circumstance of sale adjustment for differences in advertising expenses between the U.S. and the home market ( *i.e.* , Korea). (Petitioners removed this adjustment for advertising from their November 9, 2006 calculation of NV.) In their November 9, 2006 letter, Petitioners provided first-person affidavits from the individuals who collected the pricing information. Petitioners made adjustments to NV for differences in U.S. and Korean credit expenses and for packing expenses. 3. Sales Below Cost of Production and Constructed Value Petitioners also alleged that Kolon's sales of PET film in the home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a sales-below-cost investigation. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacture (COM), selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and financial and packing expenses. Based upon a comparison of the gross price of the foreign like product in the home market to the COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a sales-below-cost investigation. Because Petitioners alleged that Kolon sold PET film below the COP in the home market, Petitioners provided a comparison of EP to constructed value (CV). Petitioners based CV upon the sum of COM, SG&A expenses, financial expenses, profit and packing. 4. Alleged Margins of Dumping Based upon the information summarized above, Petitioners suggest Kolon is dumping the subject merchandise. Depending upon the type of PET film, petitioners estimate margins of 29 to 62 percent for price to price comparisons, and margins of 43 to 72 percent for comparisons of EP to CV. Scope of the Review Imports covered by this review are shipments of all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. The films excluded from this review are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches (0.254 micrometers) thick. PET film is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS)subheading 3920.62.00.00. The HTS subheading is provided for convenience and for customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage. This changed circumstances review covers Kolon and the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review We find Petitioners have provided sufficient evidence to initiate a changed circumstances review in which we will determine whether Kolon should be reinstated within the order of PET film from Korea. Kolon has argued that in *Asahi* the CIT ruled the Department is not permitted by the statute to reinstate a revoked order without a new injury finding by the International Trade Commission (the Commission). Kolon also contends that under *Asahi* the Department has no authority to reinstate a revoked order, and has further argued that the statutory provision governing changed circumstance reviews does not cover an attempt to reinstate a revoked company into an antidumping duty order. Finally, Kolon insists it has never been found by the Department to be dumping. For the reasons, outlined below, we disagree with Kolon. Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request “from an interested party for review of an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order.” Petitioners' documented allegation that Kolon has resumed dumping PET film subsequent to its revocation from the order is an appropriate basis for a changed circumstances review. The Department's authority to reinstate a revoked company into an antidumping duty order derives from sections 751(b) and
(d)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(b) and (e). In particular, the Department's authority to partially revoke an order is expressed in section 751(d) of the Act. The statute, however, provides no detailed description of the criteria, procedures or conditions relating to the Department's exercise of this authority. Accordingly, the Department has issued regulations setting forth in detail how the Department will exercise the authority granted to it under the statute. In particular, the Department has reasonably interpreted the authority to partially revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to a particular company it finds to be no longer dumping to include authority to impose a condition that the partial revocation may be withdrawn ( *i.e.* , the company may be reinstated) if dumping is resumed. To interpret the statute otherwise would permit the Department to abdicate its responsibility to ensure that injurious dumping is remedied by imposition of offsetting antidumping duties. Therefore, our determination to conduct this changed circumstances review to determine whether Kolon should be reinstated under the *Order* is supported by the statute and regulations. Additionally, as noted by both Kolon and the petitioner, conducting a changed circumstances review pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act to reinstate a company previously revoked from an antidumping duty order is consistent with the agency's practice. *See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Reinstatement of the Antidumping Order* 70 FR 16218, March 30, 2005. Moreover, we find Kolon's reliance on *Asahi* to support its assertion that the Department lacks legal authority to reinstate a company in an antidumping duty order is misplaced. The Court in *Asahi* was reviewing an earlier regulation (19 CFR 353.54(e)(1988)), which provided: Before the Secretary may tentatively revoke a Finding or an Order or terminate a suspended investigation pursuant to paragraph
(a)of this section, the parties who are subject to the revocation or the termination must agree in writing to an immediate suspension of liquidation and reinstatement of the Finding or Order or continuation of the investigation, as appropriate, if circumstances which indicate that the merchandise thereafter imported into the United States is being sold at less than fair value. Opportunity for interested parties to present views with respect to the tentative revocation will be provided. 19 CFR 353.54(e)(1988). The Court in *Asahi* acknowledged that the purpose of the 1988 regulation was to discourage the resumption of dumping after revocation, and that there were policy concerns about having to undertake an entirely new investigation. *See Asahi* , 727 F. Supp. at 628. The Court found the old regulation was so ambiguous as to make the standard of reinstatement conjectural. *Id* . However, the Court did not address whether reinstatement could be accomplished through an amendment to 19 CFR 353.54, or through a new regulatory provision. *Id* . We find that our current regulation governing reinstatement (as did the earlier 1989 regulation in effect at the time of Kolon's revocation) addresses the concerns enumerated by the Court in *Asahi* . This regulation places exporters and producers which the Department has previously found to be dumping, on notice that they are subject to immediate reinstatement once they are revoked from an order, if the Secretary later concludes they have resumed dumping. 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) and (e). Indeed, revoked companies agree in writing to immediate reinstatement upon a finding of resumed dumping. 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) and 351.222(e)(1). The present regulation makes clear that reinstatement can only occur as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order. Thus, the Commission's determination that subject merchandise sold at less than NV is injurious to the domestic industry continues to support application of antidumping duties to subject merchandise sold at less than NV. Moreover, any guidance provided by *Asahi* must be read in light of general principles of administrative law. One such basic principle of administrative law is that an administering agency must abide by its own rules to safeguard expectations. Thus, section 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) of the Department's regulations suggests that a partial revocation determination is not a dispositive administrative pronouncement. Such a conclusion logically follows from the terms of the regulation, which directs the Department to rescind its partial revocation determination and to reinstate the revoked company under the existing antidumping duty order. In the instant case, the order on PET film from Korea has not been revoked. The Department's partial revocation with respect to Kolon was expressly conditioned upon the possibility of reinstatement should dumping resume. The Department's regulation is reasonable because it imposes a reasonable condition upon partial revocation which is limited to circumstances under which the statute authorizes the Department to impose antidumping duties to remedy injurious dumping of subject merchandise. Therefore, *Asahi* lends no support to Kolon's arguments. Kolon's claim that the Department's reinstatement regulation has no statutory authority is without merit. Specifically, Kolon implies that the Act requires an injury determination by the Commission prior to the imposition of an order, and that, because the order on PET film from Korea has been partially revoked as to Kolon, a new petition must be filed with respect to Kolon, and separate affirmative determinations must be made by the Commission and the Department concerning injury and dumping. We find this argument unavailing. In the instant case, the Department made its final determination of dumping and the Commission made its final injury determination. *See Order* . Additionally, the antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea remains in place. Therefore, the Commission has found that dumping of PET film from Korea causes material injury to the domestic industry; that finding was undisturbed by the partial revocation of Kolon. Further, that revocation was premised on the absence of dumping rather than the absence of injury and was expressly conditioned on the possibility of reinstatement should dumping resume. The partial revocation of the order with respect to Kolon did not nullify the validity of the underlying injury and less than fair value determinations that resulted in the issuance of an antidumping duty order which remains in force, particularly when the partial revocation is the result of behavior subsequent to those earlier determinations. The Commission's injury determination, furthermore, does not examine the injury caused by discrete companies, but rather the injury caused by all dumped exports originating in a particular exporting country. Even if one or more exporters in that country may have been revoked from the order on the basis of absence of dumping, all dumped exports of subject merchandise from that country continue to cause or threaten material injury, pursuant to the Commission's affirmative injury determination. Thus, unless all exporters are revoked from the order, the order continues to exist, as does the potential for reinstatement. Kolon itself agreed to such a reinstatement as a condition of its partial revocation, if the Department were to conclude that it has sold the merchandise at below NV. Thus, a new injury finding specific to Kolon is neither necessary nor appropriate for reinstatement pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(h)(2)(i)(B). In requesting revocation, Kolon filed a certification from a company official pursuant to the Department's regulations that it agree to the immediate reinstatement of the order, so long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes that it, subsequent to the revocation, sold PET film at less than NV. *See Revocation* . Several other companies remain subject to the antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea. The information submitted by Petitioners in their letters of July 19, 2006, September 20, 2006, and November 9, 2006 concerning Kolon's COP, and home market and U.S. sales activity, suggest Kolon might have resumed dumping subsequent to Kolon's revocation from the order. Petitioners allege underselling of PET film in the United States at prices between 29 percent and 72 percent below NV during the July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006 period. Accordingly, the Department has properly determined to initiate a changed circumstances review to determine whether to reinstate Kolon in the order. Moreover, Kolon's claim that it was never found by the Department to be dumping is also misplaced. First, Kolon dropped its court challenge to the first administrative review. Thus, Kolon's argument that the Department would have calculated a *de minimis* margin for Kolon for the first administrative review is speculation unsubstantiated by the record. More importantly, whether Kolon was or was not found to be dumping during the first administrative review is irrelevant to our basis for initiating a changed circumstances review. Petitioners have provided credible evidence that Kolon has resumed selling subject merchandise at prices below NV subsequent to its revocation from the Order. Moreover, Kolon voluntarily agreed to reinstatement in the order upon evidence that it had resumed dumping in the United States, provided that other companies remain subject to the *Order* . Presently, several companies remain subject to the *Order* . The standard for initiation of a changed circumstances review under section 751(b) of the Act is whether the request shows changed circumstances that warrant review. The Department finds that the Petitioners' changed circumstances review request, which suggests above *de minimis* dumping margins for Kolon, satisfies that standard. Based on the foregoing, we find that Petitioners have provided sufficient evidence to initiate a changed circumstances review in which we will determine whether Kolon should be reinstated within the order of PET film from Korea. However, as the Department has yet to make a finding that Kolon did, in fact, sell subject merchandise at below NV, we will not order any border measures at this time. The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. The Department will issue its final results of review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e). This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b) of the Department's regulations. Dated: December 27, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22642 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-806 Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction of Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Quigley or Juanita Chen, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4047 or
(202)482-1904, respectively. CORRECTION: On December 21, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published its continuation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the People's Republic of China. *See Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order* , 71 FR 76636 (December 21, 2006) (“ *Continuation Notice* ”). Subsequent to the signature of the *Continuation Notice* , we identified an inadvertent error in the above-referenced notice. Specifically, the “Scope of the Order” listed in the *Continuation Notice* was incorrect. It should read as follows: Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Also covered by this antidumping order is silicon metal containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which contains more aluminum than the silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject to the order. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive. Conclusion This notice serves solely to correct the scope as it was detailed in the *Continuation Notice* . The Department's findings in the *Continuation Notice* remain unchanged. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: December 27, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22641 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 113006A] Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Construction of the East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; proposed authorization for an incidental take authorization; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) for renewal of an authorization to take small numbers of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and gray whales, by harassment, incidental to construction of a replacement bridge for the East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SF-OBB) in California. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an authorization to CALTRANS to incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of these species of pinnipeds and cetaceans during the next 12 months. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than February 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, 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 the contact listed here. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *PR1.113006A@noaa.gov* . Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the 2001 application, the 2006 renewal request, the January 2005 Marine Mammal and Acoustic Monitoring report, and the August 2006 Hydroacoustic Measurements report may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning one of the contacts listed here. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, NMFS,
(301)713-2289, ext 137, or Monica DeAngelis, NMFS,
(562)980-3232. 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, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Permission shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have no more than 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 taking 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 small numbers 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 October 16, 2006, CALTRANS sumbitted a request to NOAA requesting renewal of an IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of California sea lions ( *Zalophus californianus* ), Pacific harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina richardsii* ), harbor porpoises ( *Phocoena phocoena* ), and gray whales ( *Eschrichtius robustus* ) incidental to construction of a replacement bridge for the East Span of the SF-OBB, in San Francisco Bay (SFB or the Bay), California. An IHA was issued to CALTRANS for this activity on April 30, 2006 and it will expire on April 29, 2007 (71 FR 26750). A detailed description of the SF-OBB project and background information on the issuance of this IHA were provided in the November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64595) **Federal Register** notice and are not repeated here. Please refer to that **Federal Register** notice. Description of the Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by the Activity General information on the marine mammal species found in California waters can be found in Caretta *et al.* (2006), which is available at the following URL: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2005.pdf* . Refer to that document for information on these species. The marine mammals most likely to be found in the SF-OBB area are the California sea lion, Pacific harbor seal, and harbor porpoise. From December through May gray whales may also be present in the SF-OBB area. Information on California sea lion, harbor seal, and gray whale was provided in the November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64595), **Federal Register** notice; information on harbor porpoise was provided in the January 26, 2006 (71 FR 4352), **Federal Register** notice. Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat CALTRANS and NMFS have determined that open-water pile driving, as outlined in the project description, has the potential to result in behavioral harassment of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and gray whales that may be swimming, foraging, or resting in the project vicinity while pile driving is being conducted. Pile driving could potentially harass those few pinnipeds that are in the water close to the project site, whether their heads are above or below the surface. Based on airborne noise levels measured and on-site monitoring conducted during 2004 under the previous IHA, noise levels from the East Span project did not result in the harassment of harbor seals hauled out on Yerba Buena Island (YBI). Also, noise levels from the East Span project are not expected to result in harassment of the sea lions hauled out at Pier 39 as airborne and waterborne sound pressure levels
(SPLs)would attenuate to below harassment levels by the time they reach that haul-out site, 5.7 km (3.5 miles) from the project site. For reasons provided in greater detail in NMFS' November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64595) **Federal Register** notice and in CALTRANS' June 2004, January 2005 annual monitoring reports, and marine mammal observation memoranda between February and September, 2006, the East Span Project was resulting in only small numbers of harbor seals. Therefore, it is not expected to result in more than a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks and will not have a significant impact on their habitat. No pile driving has been commenced since September 15, 2006. Short-term impacts to habitat may include minimal disturbance of the sediment where the channels are dredged for barge access and where individual bridge piers are constructed. Long-term impacts to marine mammal habitat will be limited to the footprint of the piles and the obstruction they will create following installation. However, this impact is not considered significant as the marine mammals can easily swim around the piles of the new bridge, as they currently swim around the existing bridge piers. Mitigation The following mitigation measures are currently required under the existing IHA to reduce impacts to marine mammals to the lowest extent practicable. NMFS proposes to continue these mitigation measures under a new IHA, if issued. Barrier Systems An air bubble curtain system is required to be used only when driving the permanent open-water piles. While the bubble curtain is required specifically as a method to reduce impacts to endangered and threatened fish species in SFB, it may also provide some benefit for marine mammals. The NMFS' Biological Opinion and the California Department of Fish and Game's
(CDFG)2001 Incidental Take Permit also allow for the use of other equally effective methods, such as cofferdams, as an alternative to the air bubble curtain system to attenuate the effects of sound pressure waves on fish during driving of permanent in-Bay piles (NMFS 2001; CDFG, 2001). Piers E-16 through E-7 for both the eastbound and westbound structures of the Skyway will be surrounded by sheet-pile cofferdams, which will be de-watered before the start of pile driving. De-watered cofferdams are generally effective sound attenuation devices. For Piers E3 through E6 of the Skyway and Pier 1 the Self-Anchored Suspension span, it is anticipated that cofferdams will not be used; therefore, a bubble curtain will surround the piles. Sound Attenuation As a result of the determinations made during the Pile Installation Demonstration Project
(PIDP)restrike and the investigation at the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, NMFS determined in 2003 that CALTRANS must install an air bubble curtain for pile driving for the open-water piles without cofferdams located at the SF-OBB. This specification and configuration of the air bubble curtain system is described in pervious **Federal Register** notice (71 FR 4352, January 26, 2006), and is not repeated here. Establishment of Safety/Buffer Zones A safety zone is to be established and monitored to include all areas where the underwater SPLs are anticipated to equal or exceed 190 dB re 1 microPa rms (impulse) for pinnipeds. Also, a 180-dB re 1 microPa rms (impulse) safety zone for gray whales and harbor porpoises must be established for pile driving occurring during the gray whale migration season from December through May. Prior to commencement of any pile driving, a preliminary 500-m (1,640-ft) radius safety zone for pinnipeds (California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals) will be established around the pile driving site, as it was for the PIDP. Once pile driving begins, either new safety zones can be established for the 500 kJ and 1,700 kJ hammers or the 500 m (1,640 ft) safety zone can be retained. If new safety zones are established based on SPL measurements, NMFS requires that each new safety zone be based on the most conservative measurement (i.e., the largest safety zone configuration). SPLs will be recorded at the 500-m (1,640-ft) contour. The safety zone radius for pinnipeds will then be enlarged or reduced, depending on the actual recorded SPLs. Observers on boats will survey the safety zone to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zone before pile driving of a pile segment begins. If marine mammals are found within the safety zone, pile driving of the segment will be delayed until they move out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above water and then dives below, the contractor will wait 15 minutes and if no marine mammals are seen by the observer in that time it will be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the safety zone. This 15-minute criterion is based on scientific evidence that harbor seals in San Francisco Bay dive for a mean time of 0.50 minutes to 3.33 minutes (Harvey and Torok, 1994), and the mean diving duration for harbor porpoises ranges from 44 to 103 seconds (Westgate et al., 1995). However, due to the limitations of monitoring from a boat, there can be no assurance that the zone will be devoid of all marine mammals at all times. Once the pile driving of a segment begins it cannot be stopped until that segment has reached its predetermined depth due to the nature of the sediments underlying the Bay. If pile driving stops and then resumes, it would potentially have to occur for a longer time and at increased energy levels. In sum, this would simply amplify impacts to marine mammals, as they would endure potentially higher SPLs for longer periods of time. Pile segment lengths and wall thickness have been specially designed so that when work is stopped between segments (but not during a single segment), the pile tip is never resting in highly resistant sediment layers. Therefore, because of this operational situation, if seals, sea lions, or harbor porpoises enter the safety zone after pile driving of a segment has begun, pile driving will continue and marine mammal observers will monitor and record marine mammal numbers and behavior. However, if pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a marine mammal is sighted within the designated safety zone prior to commencement of pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the Resident Engineer (or other authorized individual) immediately and follow the mitigation requirements as outlined previously in this document. Soft Start It should be recognized that although marine mammals will be protected from Level A harassment by establishment of an air-bubble curtain and marine mammal observers monitoring a 190-dB safety zone for pinipeds and 180-dB safety zone for cetaceans, mitigation may not be 100 percent effective at all times in locating marine mammals. Therefore, in order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the project area by allowing marine mammals to vacate the area prior to receiving a potential injury, CALTRANS will also “soft start” the hammer prior to operating at full capacity. CALTRANS typically implements a “soft start” with several initial hammer strikes at less than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40-60 percent energy levels) with no less than a 1 minute interval between each strike. Similar levels of noise reduction are expected underwater. Therefore, the contractor will initiate hammering of both the 500-kJ and the 1,700-kJ hammers with this procedure in order to allow pinnipeds or cetaceans in the area to voluntarily move from the area, this should expose fewer animals to loud sounds both underwater and above water noise. This would also ensure that, although not expected, any pinnipeds and cetaceans that are missed during safety zone monitoring will not be injured. Compliance with Equipment Noise Standards To mitigate noise levels and, therefore, impacts to California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and gray whales, all construction equipment will comply as much as possible with applicable equipment noise standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and all construction equipment will have noise control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. Monitoring The following monitoring measures are currently required under the IHA to reduce impacts to marine mammals to the lowest extent practicable. Unless, as noted, the work has been completed, NMFS proposes to continue those monitoring measures under a new IHA (if issued). Visual Observations The area-wide baseline monitoring and the aerial photo survey to estimate the fraction of pinnipeds that might be missed by visual monitoring have been completed under the current IHA and do not need to be continued. Safety zone monitoring will be conducted during driving of all open-water, permanent piles without cofferdams and with cofferdams when underwater SPLs reach 190 dB RMS or greater. Monitoring of the pinniped and cetacean safety zones will be conducted by a minimum of three qualified NMFS-approved observers for each safety zone. One three-observer team will be required for the safety zones around each pile driving site, so that multiple teams will be required if pile driving is occurring at multiple locations at the same time. The observers will begin monitoring at least 30 minutes prior to startup of the pile driving. Most likely observers will conduct the monitoring from small boats, as observations from a higher vantage point (such as the SF-OBB) is not practical. Pile driving will not begin until the safety zone is clear of marine mammals. However, as described in the Mitigation section, once pile driving of a segment begins, operations will continue uninterrupted until the segment has reached its predetermined depth. However, if pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a marine mammal is sighted within the designated safety zone prior to commencement of pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the Resident Engineer (or other authorized individual) immediately and follow the mitigation requirements as outlined previously (see Mitigation). Monitoring will continue through the pile driving period and will end approximately 30 minutes after pile driving has been completed. Biological observations will be made using binoculars during daylight hours. In addition to monitoring from boats, during open-water pile driving, monitoring at one control site (harbor seal haul-out sites and the waters surrounding such sites not impacted by the East Span Project's pile driving activities, i.e. Mowry Slough) will be designated and monitored for comparison. Monitoring will be conducted twice a week at the control site whenever open-water pile driving is being conducted. Data on all observations will be recorded and will include items such as species, numbers, behavior, details of any observed disturbances, time of observation, location, and weather. The reactions of marine mammals will be recorded based on the following classifications that are consistent with the Richmond Bridge Harbor Seal survey methodology (for information on the Richmond Bridge authorization, see 68 FR 66076, November 25, 2003):
(1)No response,
(2)head alert (looks toward the source of disturbance),
(3)approach water (but not leave), and
(4)flush (leaves haul-out site). The number of marine mammals under each disturbance reaction will be recorded, as well as the time when seal re-haul after a flush. Acoustical Observations Airborne noise level measurements have been completed and underwater environmental noise levels will continue to be measured as part of the East Span Project. The purpose of the underwater sound monitoring is to establish the safety zone of 190 dB re 1 micro-Pa RMS (impulse) for pinnipeds and the safety zone of 180 dB re 1 micro-Pa RMS (impulse) for cetaceans. Monitoring will be conducted during the driving of the last half (deepest pile segment) for any given open-water pile. One pile in every other pair of pier groups will be monitored. One reference location will be established at a distance of 100 m (328 ft) from the pile driving. Sound measurements will be taken at the reference location at two depths (a depth near the mid-water column and a depth near the bottom of the water column but at least 1 m (3 ft) above the bottom) during the driving of the last half (deepest pile segment) for any given pile. Two additional in-water spot measurements will be conducted at appropriate depths (near mid water column), generally 500 m (1,640 ft) in two directions either west, east, south or north of the pile driving site will be conducted at the same two depths as the reference location measurements. In cases where such measurements cannot be obtained due to obstruction by land mass, structures or navigational hazards, measurements will be conducted at alternate spot measurement locations. Measurements will be made at other locations either nearer or farther as necessary to establish the approximate distance for the safety zones. Each measuring system shall consist of a hydrophone with an appropriate signal conditioning connected to a sound level meter and an instrument grade digital audiotape recorder (DAT). Overall SPLs shall be measured and reported in the field in dB re 1 micro-Pa rms (impulse). An infrared range finder will be used to determine distance from the monitoring location to the pile. The recorded data will be analyzed to determine the amplitude, time history and frequency content of the impulse. Reporting Under the current IHA, CALTRANS has submitted weekly marine mammal monitoring reports during when pile driving is commenced. In August 2006, CALTRANS submitted its Hydroacoustic Measurement at Piers T1 and E2 report. This report is available by contacting NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) or on the Web at *http://biomitigation.org* . Under the proposed IHA, coordination with NMFS will occur on a weekly basis, or more often as necessary. During periods with open-water pile driving activity, weekly monitoring reports will be made available to NMFS and the public at *http://biomitigation.org* . These weekly reports will include a summary of the previous week's monitoring activities and an estimate of the number of seals and sea lions that may have been disturbed as a result of pile driving activities. In addition, CALTRANS proposes to provide NMFS' Southwest Regional Administrator with a draft final report within 90 days after completion of the westbound Skyway contract and 90 days after completion of the Suspension Span foundations contract. This report should detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed due to pile driving. If comments are received from the Regional Administrator on the draft final report, a final report must be submitted to NMFS within 30 days thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft final report will be considered to be the final report. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)NMFS has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)and made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement on this action is not required by section 102(2) of the NEPA or its implementing regulations. A copy of the EA and FONSI are available upon request (see ADDRESSES ). Endangered Species Act
(ESA)On October 30, 2001, NMFS completed consultation under section 7 of the ESA with the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)on the CALTRANS' construction of a replacement bridge for the East Span of the SF-OBB in California. The finding contained in the Biological Opinion was that the proposed action at the East Span of the SF-OBB is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed anadromous salmonids, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for these species. Listed marine mammals are not expected to be in the area of the action and thus would not be affected. However, the proposed issuance of an IHA to CALTRANS constitutes an agency action that authorizes an activity that may affect ESA-listed species and, therefore, is subject to section 7 of the ESA. Moreover, as the effects of the activities on listed salmonids were analyzed during a formal consultation between the FHWA and NMFS, and as the underlying action has not changed from that considered in the consultation, the discussion of effects that are contained in the Biological Opinion issued to the FHWA on October 30, 2001, pertains also to this action. NMFS has determined that issuance of an IHA for this activity does not lead to any effects to listed species apart from those that were considered in the consultation on FHWA's action. Preliminary Determinations For the reasons discussed in this document and in previously identified supporting documents, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of pile driving and other activities associated with construction of the East Span Project should result, at worst, in the Level B harassment of small numbers of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and potentially gray whales that inhabit or visit SFB in general and the vicinity of the SF-OBB in particular. While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area around the construction site, may be made by these species to avoid the resultant visual and acoustic disturbance, the availability of alternate areas within SFB and haul-out sites (including pupping sites) and feeding areas within the Bay has led NMFS to preliminarily determine that this action will have a negligible impact on California sea lion, Pacific harbor seal, harbor porpoises, and gray whale populations along the California coast. In addition, no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated and harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned previously in this document. Proposed Authorization NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to CALTRANS for the potential harassment of small numbers of harbor seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoises, and gray whales incidental to construction of a replacement bridge for the East Span of the San Franciso-Oakland Bay Bridge in California, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed activity would result in the harassment of only small numbers of harbor seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoises, and possibly gray whales and will have no more than a negligible impact on these marine mammal stocks. Information Solicited NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning this request (see ADDRESSES ). Prior to submitting comments, NMFS recommends reviewers of this document read NMFS' November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64595) and May 8, 2006 (71 FR 26750) **Federal Register** notices on this action, especially responses to comments made previously, as NMFS does not intend to address these issues further without the submission of additional scientific information relevant to the comment. Dated: December 28, 2006. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-22615 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 110906A] Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Open Water Seismic Operations in Cook Inlet, Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; proposed authorizations for two incidental take authorizations; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS has received requests from ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.
(CPAI)and from Union Oil Company of California
(UOCC)for authorizations to take small numbers of five marine mammal species incidental to seismic operations in portions of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue authorizations to CPAI and UOCC to incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of these species between approximately mid-March and mid-June, 2007. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than February 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on the applications and draft Environmental Assessment
(EA)should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, 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 the contact listed here. The mailboxes address for providing e-mail comments are *PR1.110906A@noaa.gov* . Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. Copies of the applications, the application letters, draft EA, and other related documents may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning one of the contacts listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). The applications and draft EA are also available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289, ext 137, or Brad Smith, Alaska Region, NMFS,
(907)271-3023. 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, 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 taking 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 small numbers 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 October 6 and on October 12, 2006, NMFS received applications from CPAI and UOCC, respectively, requesting Incidental Harassment Authorizations
(IHAs)for the possible harassment of small numbers of the Cook Inlet beluga whale ( *Delphinapterus leucas* ), Steller lions ( *Eumetopias jubatus* ), Pacific harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina richardsi* ), harbor porpoises ( *Phocoena phocoena* ), and killer whales ( *Orcinus orca* ) incidental to conducting open water seismic operations in portions of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Both proposed operations use an ocean-bottom cable
(OBC)system to conduct seismic surveys. OBC seismic surveys are used in waters that are too shallow for the data to be acquired using a marine-streamer vessel and/or too deep to have static ice in the winter. This type of seismic survey requires the use of multiple vessels for cable layout/pickup, recording, shooting, and possibly one or two vessels smaller than those used in streamer operations. The utility boats can be very small, in the range of 10 - 15 m (33 - 49 ft). An OBC operation begins by laying cables off the back of the layout vessel. Cable length typically is 4 - 6 km (2.5 - 3.7 miles) but can be up to 12 km (7.4 miles). Groups of seismic survey receivers (usually a combination of both hydrophones and vertical-motion geophones) are attached to the cable in intervals of 25 - 70 m (82 - 246 ft). Multiple cables are laid on the seafloor parallel to each other using this layout method, with a cable spacing of less than 0.5 mile (0.8 km), depending on the geophysical objective of the survey. The sound source levels (zero to peak) associated with the OBC seismic survey are the same for most 2D and 3D marine seismic surveys (233 - 240 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m). The proposed operations would be active 24 hours per day, but the airguns would only be active for 1 - 2 hours during each of the 3 - 4 daily slack tide periods. The source for the proposed OBC seismic surveys would be a 900-in 3 BOLT airgun array situated on the source vessel, the *Peregrine Falcon* . The array would be made up of 2 sub-arrays, each with 2 3-airgun clusters separated by 1.5 m (4.9 ft) off the stern of the vessel. One cluster will consist of 3 225-in 3 airguns and the second cluster will have 3 75-in 3 airguns. During seismic operations, the sub-arrays will fire at a rate of every 10 - 25 seconds and focus energy in the downward direction as the vessel travels at 4 - 5 knots (4.6 - 5.8 mph). Source level of the airgun array is 249 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m (0 - peak), and the dominant frequency range is 8 - 40 Hz. A near-field hydrophone is mounted about 1 m (3.3 ft) above each airgun station (one hydrophone is used per cluster), one depth transducer per position is mounted on the airgun's ultrabox, and a high pressure transducer is mounted at the aft end of the sub-array to monitor high pressure air supply. A single 200 CFM PRICE compressor would supply air for the array. The compressor would be run through a pressure regulated valve tree. Water separators and dehumidifiers are also part of the source system. The array would be located with the use of DGPS antennas located on top of the A-frames. The A-frame would be lowered and raised based on water depth before the firing of the airguns. The geographic region for the seismic operation proposed by CPAI encompasses a 25 km 2 (9.7 square miles) area in northwestern Cook Inlet, paralleling the shoreline from just offshore of the Beluga River south for about 6 km (3.7 miles). The approximate boundaries of the region of the proposed project area are 61°09.473′ N, 151°11.987′ W; 61°16.638′ N, 151°02.198′ W; 61°12.538′ N, 150°49.979′ W; and 61°05.443′ N, 1517°00.165′ W. Water depths range from 0 to 24 m (80 ft). There will be a 1.6 km (1 mile) setback of operations from the mouth of the Beluga River to comply with Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADFG)restrictions. The proposed seismic operations would occur from mid March depending on the time of ice breakup, and last until mid-May, 2007. The geographic region for the activity proposed by UOCC encompasses a 28.2 km 2 (10.9 square miles) area in northwestern Cook Inlet, paralleling the shoreline offshore of Granite Point, and extending from shore into the inlet to an average of about 1.6 km (1 mile). The approximate boundaries of the region of the proposed project area are 61°00.827′ N, 151°24.071′ W; 61°02.420′ N, 151°15.375′ W; 61°00.862′ N, 150°15.313′ W; and 61°57.979′ N, 151°23.946′ W. There are no major rivers flowing into the open water seismic project area. Water depths range from 0 to 18 m (60 ft). The proposed seismic operations would begin as early as May 1 and end no later than June 15, 2007. Description of the Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by the Activity The marine mammals that are potentially found in Cook Inlet are the Cook Inlet beluga whales, Steller sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales. Among these species, only the Steller sea lion is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and it is also designated as depleted under the MMPA. The Cook Inlet beluga whale is designated as depleted under the MMPA. General information for these species can be found in Angliss and Outlaw (2006), which is available at the following URL: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2005.pdf* . Additional information on these species is presented below. Cook Inlet beluga whale In the U.S. waters, beluga whales comprise five distinct stocks: Beaufort Sea, Eastern Chukchi Sea, Eastern Bering Sea, Bristol Bay, and Cook Inlet (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). For the proposed seismic operations, only the Cook Inlet beluga stock occurs in the project area. The Cook Inlet stock is the most isolated of the five stocks, based on the degree of genetic differentiation between this stock and the four others (O'Corry-Crowe *et al.* , 1997). The Cook Inlet beluga whale population has declined significantly over the years (NMFS, 2005). NMFS systematic aerial surveys documented a decline in abundance of nearly 50 percent between 1994 and 1998, from an estimate of 653 whales to 347 whales (Hobbs *et al.* , 2000). The annual abundance surveys conducted each June from 1999 to 2005 have resulted in abundance estimates of 367, 435, 386, 313, 357, 366, and 278 whales for each year, respectively (Rugh *et al.* , 2006). The Cook Inlet beluga whale stock is considered below its Optimum Sustainable Population. There is considerable concern regarding its small population size. Cook Inlet beluga whales demonstrate site fidelity to summer concentration areas, where they regularly occur in just a few areas each year (Seaman *et al.* , 1985), typically near river mouths and associated shallow, warm and low salinity waters (Moore *et al/* , 2000). While there is inter-annual variability in beluga use among areas, generally belugas occur in the Susitna and Chickaloon areas in May to July, Turnagain Arm in August, Knik Arm in September, and the mid-Cook Inlet between Point Possession and Kalgin Island in January through April (Hansen and Hubbard, 1999; Rugh *et al.* , 2000; 2004; 2005). These patterns are consistent with those recorded for 14 tagged beluga whales tracked by satellite from 2000 to 2003 (Hobbs *et al.* , 2005). Within this distribution, NMFS has characterized the relative value of 4 habitats as part of the management and recovery strategy in its Draft Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) (NMFS, 2005). Type 1 habitat is termed “High Value/High Sensitivity” and includes what NMFS believes to be the most important and sensitive areas of the Inlet in terms of beluga whales. Type 2 is termed “High Value,” and include summer feeding areas and winter habitats in waters where whales typically occur in lesser densities or in deeper waters. Type 3 habitat occurs in the offshore areas of the mid and upper Inlet and also includes wintering habitat. Type 4 habitat describes the remaining portions of the range of these whales within Cook Inlet. Beluga whale use and distribution within Cook Inlet is documented from a study using satellite tracking of tagged whales (Hobbs *et al.* , 2005). Among the 14 beluga whales monitored by satellite telemetry between July and March in 2000 - 2003, all remained in Cook Inlet the entire time they were tracked. During summer and fall, whales were concentrated in rivers and bays in Upper Cook Inlet; during winter, they were more dispersed and located farther offshore. From December through March, whales were located primarily offshore and ranged widely in upper and mid Cook Inlet. Based on this study, it can be inferred that at least some belugas can be found in the CPAI and UOCC proposed project vicinities most months of the year as they seasonally move between the upper and lower Inlet, and between inshore and offshore waters. It can also be inferred that beluga whale occurrence in or near the UOCC Granite Point project area during late spring and early summer is much infrequent as most belugas will be concentrated in rivers and bays farther north in the Upper Inlet (Rugh *et al.* , 2000; Hobbs *et al.* , 2005; Rugh *et al/* , 2005). Beluga River area is in the extreme southern edge of the area classified by NMFS as Type 2 habitat, which is a summer feeding site. The Granite Point project area is within Type 3 habitat, which is a wintering area and secondary summering site, and historic sites. Sources of Cook Inlet beluga whale mortality include strandings (Vos and Shelden, 2005), predation by killer whales (Shelden *et al.* , 2003), and subsistence harvest (Mahoney and Shelden, 2000; NMFS, 2003; 2005). Steller sea lion The western U.S. stock of Steller sea lion is distributed throughout the Bering Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Alaska east to 144oW, which includes Cook Inlet (Loughlin, 1997). The most recent minimum estimate of this population was 38,513 animals, including pups (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). No abundance estimate for Steller sea lions is available for Cook Inlet. Steller sea lions are sighted in Lower Cook Inlet than in the upper Inlet (LGL, 2006). Steller sea lion critical habitat has been established at locations in the southern portion of Lower Cook Inlet (58 FR 45269, August 27, 1993). Haulouts in the lower Inlet are located near the mouth of Cook Inlet at Gore Point, Elizabeth Island, Perl Island, the Barren Islands, and Chugach Island. Steller sea lions gather on traditional rookeries from mid-May through mid-July to give birth and breed. No haulouts occur in Upper Cook Inlet, the geographic region in which the proposed seismic activities would occur, and animals are rarely sighted north of Nikiski (Rugh *et al.* , 2005; LGL, 2006). Pacific harbor seal Harbor seals are present in coastal waters throughout Cook Inlet. They are more abundant in lower Cook Inlet than in the upper Inlet (Rugh *et al/* , 2005). In the Upper Inlet, harbor seals occur in the Little Susitna River, Susitna River, Turnagain Arm, Chickaloon Bay, Knik Arm, and Beluga River from May through October (Rugh *et al.* , 2005). Typically, fewer than about 100 harbor seals have been recorded in any one of these locations with the majority in the Chickaloon Bay and the Susitna River areas and very few at the Beluga River (Rugh *et al.* , 2005). One to three harbor seals have been annually reported in or near the Beluga River area (Rugh *et al.* , 2005). Major harbor seal haulout sites in the Cook Inlet region are found in the lower portion of the Inlet. The reproductive period (pupping and breeding) occurs at most major haulouts in the Inlet from May through July (NMFS, 2003). Harbor seals molt following the reproductive period. The peak season for molting in the Gulf of Alaska occurs from July to September (Pitcher and Calkins, 1979). The population size of the Gulf of Alaska stock is estimated at 29,175 seals (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). However, no abundance estimate is available for Cook Inlet. Harbor seals have declined in some areas of the northern Gulf of Alaska by 78 percent during the past two decades (Fadely *et al.* , 1997). Causes of this decline may include natural population fluctuations or cycles, reduced environmental carrying capacity and prey availability due to natural or human causes, predation, harvests, direct fisheries related mortality, entanglement in marine debris, pollution, and emigration (Hoover-Miller, 1994). Harbor porpoise Harbor porpoise occur throughout Alaska waters (Lowry *et al/* , 1982). The Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor porpoise, which includes Cook Inlet animals, is estimated at 30,506 animals (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Dahlheim *et al.*
(2000)estimated the average density of harbor porpoises in Cook Inlet was 7.2 animals per 1,000 km2 (386 square miles), or 1 animal per 139 km2 (53 square miles), which indicates densities are very low in the Inlet. Harbor porpoises occur in Upper Cook Inlet throughout the year in small numbers but are more abundant in the lower Inlet (LGL, 2006). Killer whale The Eastern North Pacific stocks of killer whales includes transient and resident killer whales in the Gulf of Alaska and Cook Inlet (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). The minimum abundance estimated for the Alaska Resident stock of killer is 1,123 animals; and for the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock of killer whale is 314 animals (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Killer whales in Cook Inlet have not been well documented (Shelden *et al.* , 2003). However, their occurrence in the area is sporadic and not considered a daily or common event. Resident and transient killer whales have been observed. Most sightings of resident killer whales occur in the lower Inlet (Shelden *et al.* , 2003). Small groups of killer whales, believed to be transient whales, have been seen in upper Cook Inlet (NMFS, 2003). Rugh *et al/*
(2005)reported observing no killer whales in the upper Inlet and only 23 in the lower Inlet during surveys from 1993 to 2004. Similarly, two recent marine mammal studies in the upper Inlet and Knik Arm did not observe any killer whales (Funk *et al.* , 2005; Ireland *et al.* , 2005). There are no records of killer whales in the Beluga River and Granite Point project areas. Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat Seismic surveys using acoustic energy may have the potential to adversely impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the activities (Gordon *et al.* , 2004). The sound source levels (zero to peak) associated with the OBC seismic survey can be as high as 233 - 240 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m. However, most energy is directed downward, and the short duration of each pulse limits the total energy. Received levels within several kilometers typically exceed 160 dB re 1 microPa (Richardson *et al/* , 1995), depending on water depth, bottom type, ice cover, etc. Intense acoustic signals from seismic surveys have been known to cause behavioral alteration such as reduced vocalization rates (Goold, 1996), avoidance (Malme *et al.* , 1986, 1988; Richardson *et al.* , 1995; Harris *et al.* , 2001), and changes in blow rates (Richardson *et al.* , 1995) in several marine mammal species. The proposed surveys would use a 900-in 3 BOLT airgun array consisting of 3 225-in 3 airguns and 3 75-in 3 airguns. The source level of this array is expected to be considerably lower than the 1,200-in 3 BOLT airgun array used by the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG)vessel *Healy* (70 FR 47792, August 15, 2005). To conservatively assess the received levels from airgun pulses, the USCG's Healy modeled data were used to calculate the maximum distances where sound levels would be 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 microPa rms. The maximum distances where sound levels were estimated at 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 microPa rms from a single 1,200-in 3 BOLT airgun in the northern Beaufort Sea were 313 m (1,027 ft), 370 m (1,214 ft), and 1,527 m (5,010 ft), respectively. However, since the proposed seismic surveys would use a smaller 900-in 3 airgun array in an area with soft mud bottom that gradually slopes outward from shore, which is a poor condition for sound transmission (Richardson *et al.* , 1995), the received levels are expected to be significantly lower at these distances. The seismic surveys would only introduce acoustic energy into the water column and no objects would be released into the environment. The survey vessels would travel at a speed of 4 5 knots and the two projects would be conducted in a small area of Cook Inlet for a short period. There is a relative lack of knowledge about the potential impacts of seismic energy on marine fish and invertebrates. Available data suggest that there may be physical impacts on eggs and on larval, juvenile, and adult stages of fish at very close range (within meters) to seismic energy source. Considering typical source levels associated with seismic arrays, close proximity to the source would result in exposure to very high energy levels. Where eggs and larval stages are not able to escape such exposures, juvenile and adult fish most likely would avoid them. In the cases of eggs and larvae, it is likely that the numbers adversely affected by such exposure would be very small in relation to natural mortality. Studies on fish confined in cages that were exposed under intense sound for extended period showed physical or physiological impacts (Scholik and Yan, 2001; 2002; McCauley *et al.* , 2003; Smith *et al.* , 2004). While limited data on seismic surveys regarding physiological effects on fish indicate that impacts are short-term and are most apparent after exposure at very close range (McCauley *et al.* , 2000a; 2000b; Dalen *et al.* , 1996), other studies have demonstrated that seismic guns had little effect on the day-to-day behavior of marine fish and invertebrates (Knudsen *et al.* , 1992; Wardle *et al.* , 2001). It is more likely that fish will swim away upon hearing the approaching seismic impulses (Engas *et al.* , 1996). Based on the foregoing, NMFS finds preliminarily that the proposed seismic surveys would not cause any permanent impact on the physical habitats and marine mammal prey species in the proposed project area. Number of Marine Mammals Expected to Be Taken NMFS estimates that approximately 6 - 57 Cook Inlet beluga whales (average 26 whales) out of a population of 278 whales and a maximum of 30 Pacific harbor seals out of a population of 29,175 seals would be harassed incidentally by the two proposed seismic operations from March to June, 2007. These numbers of take represent 2.2 - 20.5 percent (average 9.4 percent) Cook Inlet beluga whales and less than 0.1 percent of Alaska stock of Pacific harbor seals that could be taken by Level B harassment if no mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented. These numbers are based on the animal density, length of track planned, and the assumption that all animals will be harassed at distances where noise at received level is at and above 160 dB re 1 microPa rms. Beluga whale and harbor seal densities were calculated by dividing the daily counts of whales (ranges from 11 - 99, with an average of 46) and seals
(75)by the approximate area (1,248 km 2 , or 482 square miles) surveyed in the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to Pt. MacKenzie) during the most recently published survey for June 2004 (Rugh *et al/* , 2005). Although 20.5 percent of Cook Inlet beluga whales could subject to take by Level B harassment, this estimate was based on an unusually high count of whales on June 3, 2004 in Susitna Delta (from North Foreland to Pt. Mackenzie). Cook Inlet beluga aerial surveys conducted by NMFS in June, 2003 and 2004, provided median counts of whales between 0 - 99, with an average count of 29 whales in the same area. This estimate is conservative as it assumes that all animals exposed by seismic impulses over 160 dB re 1 microPa would be harassed and disturbed. As mentioned earlier that the majority acoustic energy of low frequency airgun impulses falls outside beluga whale's most sensitive hearing range (Richardson *et al.* , 1995), it is most likely that only a portion of whales within the 160 dB re 1 microPa isopleth would be disturbed. In addition, it is also possible that many of the animals would be habituated to this level of acoustic disturbances. Furthermore, mitigation measures, including the ramp-up requirement during the initiation of the seismic operations (see below) could eliminate most, if not all, startling behavior from animals near the proposed project area. Therefore, NMFS believes that the actual number of Level B harassment takes of Cook Inlet beluga whale would be much lower than the estimated average of 26 whales. There are no similar population surveys for harbor porpoises, Steller sea lions, and killer whales conducted within the proposed project area. However, based on an abundance survey of harbor porpoises within the entire Cook Inlet (Dahlheim *et al.* , 2000), it is estimated that the population density of harbor porpoise in the entire Inlet is 0.0072 animal per km2. Based on this density data, NMFS estimates that about 6 harbor porpoises out of a population of 30,506 porpoises could be harassed incidentally by the two proposed seismic operations from March to June, 2007. This number of take represents less than 0.02 percent of harbor porpoises that could be taken by Level B harassment. There is no density estimates available for Steller sea lions and killer whales with in Cook Inlet. However, their appearance in Upper Cook Inlet is rare and none of these species were sighted in the upper Inlet during the 2004 survey (Rugh *et al.* , 2005). Therefore, NMFS concludes that the harassment of these species is reasonably believed to be much lower than those of beluga whales and harbor seals. Effects on Subsistence Needs The proposed project areas are located 4 - 15 miles (6.4 - 24.1 km) from Tyonek, which is predominately a Dena'ina Athabaskan community. However, these areas are not important subsistence areas for Tyonek hunters. The Tyonek native community has been displaced from many traditional hunting (and trapping and fishing) areas north of Tyonek including Beluga River during the twentieth century. As more non-natives utilized and occupied traditional subsistence areas combined with harvest regulation restrictions, changes in the abundance and distribution of subsistence resources, and other factors, Tyonek native subsistence activities have focused closer to the village. While Tyonek natives may harvest one beluga whale per year and occasionally harbor seals (Huntington, 2000), their primary source of meat is moose (Foster, 1982). Therefore, NMFS believes that the proposed projects would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence harvest. Mitigation The following mitigation measures are proposed be required under the proposed IHA to be issued to CPAI and UOCC for conducting seismic operations in northwestern Cook Inlet. NMFS believes that the implementation of these mitigation measures would result in the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat. Time and Frequency Seismic operations would be limited from mid-March to mid-June in portions of northwestern Cook Inlet. During the seismic operations, airguns would only be active for 1 - 2 hours during each of the 3 - 4 slack tide periods, with the vessel moving at a speed of 4 - 5 knots (4.6 - 5.8 mph). There will be a 1.6 km (1 mile) set back of airguns from the mouth of the Beluga River to comply with ADFG restrictions. Establishment of Safety Zones The applicants propose to establish a 370-m (1,214-ft) radius safety zone for cetaceans and a 313-m (1,027-ft) radius safety zone for pinnipeds for the seismic operations. These safety zone radii were calculated from a model for a 1,200-in3 BOLT array used in the Beaufort Sea where the received sound pressure levels
(SPL)attenuated to 180 dB and 190 dB re 1 microPa rms, respectively. Since the data used in calculating the size of safety zones were from a much larger array, while the proposed seismic operations would use a smaller array in an area with poor conditions for sound transmission, NMFS believes that these safety zone radii are conservative. Additional data will be acquired to verify the 190, 180, and 160 dB
(rms)distances for the airgun configurations during the proposed seismic operations, and the disturbance could be modified if NMFS finds that the level of take is being exceeded and resulting in higher than a negligible impact on the species or stock in question. An independent marine acoustic firm, will be used to acquire the data. Scientifically valid sampling design will be followed to collect data at the beginning of the seismic program. The data will be used to calibrate the acoustic model and adjust the safety radii to match the field values for the 190, 180, and 160 dB distances for each array, if different from these estimated values. Safety zones would be surveyed and monitored prior to, during, and after the airgun seismic operations. A detailed description of marine mammal monitoring is described in the Monitoring and Reporting section below. Speed and Course Alteration If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius and based on its position and the relative course of travel is likely to enter the safety zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when practicable and safe, be changed to avoid the impacts to the animal. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic and support vessels must be closely monitored to ensure that the animal does not
(1)approach the safety radius, or
(2)enter the safety zone. If either of these scenarios occur, further mitigation measures must be taken (i.e., either further course alterations or power down or shut down of the airgun(s)). Power-down Procedures A power down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such that the radius of the 180- or 190-dB zone is decreased to the extent that marine mammals are not in the safety zone. During a power-down, one airgun is operated. The continued operation of one airgun is intended to alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic guns in the area. If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety zone but is likely to enter the safety zone, and if the vessel's course and/or speed cannot be changed to avoid having the animal enter the safety radius, the airguns must be powered down before the animal is within the safety zone. Shut-down Procedures A shut-down occurs when all airgun activity is suspended. The operating airgun(s) must be shut down if a marine mammal approaches the applicable safety zone and a power down still would not likely to keep the animal outside the newly adjusted smaller safety zone. The operating airgun(s) must also be shut down completely if a marine mammal is found within the safety zone during the seismic operations. The shut-down procedure should be accomplished within several seconds (of a “one shot” period) of the determination that a marine mammal is within or about to enter the safety zone. Following a shut-down, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety zone. The animal will be considered to have cleared the safety zone if it is visually observed to have left the safety zone, or if it has not been seen within the safety zone for 15 minutes. Ramp-up Procedures Although marine mammals will be protected from Level A harassment by establishment of a safety zone at a SPL levels of 180 and 190 dB re 1 microPa rms for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, mitigation may not be 100 percent effective at all times in locating marine mammals. In order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the project area by allowing marine mammals to vacate the area prior to receiving a potential injury, and to further reduce Level B harassment by startling marine mammals with a sudden intensive sound, CPAI and UOCC will be required to implement “ramp-up” practice when starting up airgun arrays. Ramp-up will begin with the smallest airgun in the array that is being used for all subsets of the 6-gun array. Airguns will be added in a sequence such that the source level in the array will increase at a rate no greater than 6 dB per 5 minutes. During the ramp-up, the safety zone for the full 6-airgun system will be maintained. Monitoring and Reporting Monitoring would be conducted by qualified NMFS-approved marine mammal observers (MMOs). Reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 Bushnell or equivalent) and laser range finders (Leica LRF 1200 laser range finder or equivalent) would be standard equipment for the monitors. Vessel-based MMOs will begin marine mammals monitoring at least 30 minutes prior to the planned start of airgun operations and during all periods of airgun operations. MMOs will survey the safety zone to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zone before a seismic survey begins. If marine mammals are found within the safety zone, seismic operations will be suspended until the marine mammal leaves the area. If a marine mammal is seen above the water and then dives below, the operator will wait 15 minutes, and if no marine mammals are seen by the MMOs in that time it will be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the safety zone. When feasible, observations will also be made during transits, moving cable, and other operations when airguns are inactive. Data for each distinct marine mammal species observed in the proposed project area during the period of the seismic operations would be collected. Numbers of marine mammals observed, species identification if possible, frequency of observation, the time corresponding to the daily tidal cycle, and any behavioral changes due to the airgun operations will be recorded and entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized validity data checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program, and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, or other programs for further processing and archiving. Results from the vessel-based observations will provide:
(1)Basis for real-time mitigation (airgun shut-down);
(2)information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS;
(3)data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted;
(4)information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity; and
(5)data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity. Reports from CPAI and UOCC will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the respective projects. The reports will describe the operations that were conducted, the marine mammals that were detected near the operations, and provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The reports will also include estimates of the amount and nature of potential “take” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)NMFS has prepared a draft EA for public review and comment (see ADDRESSES ), that describes the impact on the human environment that would result from implementation of this action. NMFS has concluded, preliminarily, that no significant impact on the human environment would result. Endangered Species Act
(ESA)Based on a review conducted by NMFS Alaska Regional Office biologists, it is not likely that any ESA-listed species would be taken due to the proposed seismic operations. Steller sea lions are recorded in these waters, but are considered uncommon in spring and early summer in the proposed project area. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a formal section 7 consultation is not necessary. Preliminary Determinations NMFS has determined preliminarily that small numbers of beluga whales, Pacific harbor seals, and harbor porpoises may be taken incidental to seismic surveys, by no more than Level B harassment and that such taking will result in no more than a negligible impact on such species or stocks. In addition, NMFS has determined preliminarily that Steller sea lions and killer whales, if present within the vicinity of the proposed activities could be taken incidentally, buy by no more than Level B harassment and that such taking would result in no more than a negligible impact on such species or stocks. At this time, NMFS is not able to determine whether any potential take would involve small numbers of Steller sea lions or killer whales due to data limitations and our inability to develop density estimates. Regardless, given the infrequent occurrence of these species (or none at all), NMFS believes that any take would be significantly lower than those of beluga whales or harbor seals. While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the project period may be made by these species to avoid the resultant visual and acoustic disturbance, NMFS nonetheless finds that this action would result in no more than a negligible impact on these marine mammal species and/or stocks. NMFS also finds that the proposed action will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. In addition, no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated or authorized, and harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures described in this document. Proposed Authorization NMFS proposes to issue IHAs to CPAI and UOCC for the potential harassment of small numbers of Cook Inlet beluga whales, Pacific harbor seals and harbor porpoises incidental to conducting seismic operations in the northwestern Cook Inlet in Alaska, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Likewise, NMFS proposes to issue IHAs for potential harassment of Steller sea lions and killer whales incidental to conducting of seismic operations in the northwestern Cook Inlet in Alaska, provided that previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: December 28, 2006. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-22634 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 122806C] Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council); Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene public meetings. DATES: The meeting will be held January 22 -26, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Grand Hotel Marriott, 1 Grand Blvd., Point Clear AL 36564. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL, 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: 813-348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Council *Thursday, January 25, 2007* —The Council will begin at 8:30 am to review the agenda and minutes. Public testimony on a regulatory amendment to address vermilion snapper management and exempted fishing permits (EFPs), if any, will be from 8:45 to 10 a.m. Persons wishing to testify on the regulatory amendment must register by filling out a public testimony card prior to the beginning of the testimony period. From 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. the Council will hold an Open Public Comment Period regarding any fishery issue or concern. People wishing to speak before the Council should complete a public comment card prior to the comment period. From 1:30-2 p.m. the Council will hear a presentation regarding Dolphin Depredation. The Council will then review and discuss reports from the previous three day's committee meetings as follows: 2-3:30 pm—Reef Fish Management; 3:30-4:15 pm—Joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Management Committees; 4:15-4:45 pm—Shrimp Management Committee; 4:45-5:00 pm—Mackerel Management Committee; 5-5:15 p.m.—Data Collection Committee; Budget/Personnel Committee from 5:15-5:30 p.m. *Friday, January 26, 2007* —The Council will begin at 8:30 a.m. to continue reviewing and discussing reports from the previous three day's committee meetings as follows: 8:30 -8:45 am—Migratory Species Management Committee; 8:45 -9 a.m.—SSC Selection Committee; 9-9:30 a.m. Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum Committees. The Council will conclude its meeting by discussing Other Business items from 9:30 -10:30 a.m. Committees *Monday, January 22, 2007,* 1-5:30 p.m.—The Reef Fish Management Committee will meet to take final action on a Regulatory Amendment for Vermilion Snapper, review Reef Fish Amendment 30 (gag, amberjack, triggerfish, red grouper), and set scoping hearings. The Committee will also review the Ad Hoc Grouper IFQ Advisory Panel's
(AP)recommendations for Reef Fish Amendment 29 (Grouper Individual Fishing Quota [IFQ]), as well as review a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission study and Southeast Fisheries Science Center recommendations for a goliath grouper scientific harvest. *Tuesday, January 23, 2007,* 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. —The Joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Management Committee will meet to receive a presentation on red snapper juvenile densities off Texas. The Committee will also review the current Draft Joint Reef Fish Amendment 27/Shrimp Amendment 14 and additional potential shrimp actions; the Committee report from the August 2006 meeting; the NMFS' FEIS and Interim Rule; the Final Shrimp Effort Workgroup and the Ad Hoc Shrimp Effort Management AP Reports; and consider linked vs. delinked shrimp and reef fish mortality reduction scenarios for Reef Fish Amendment 27/Shrimp Amendment 14. The Committee may also select public hearing locations for Reef Fish Amendment 27/Shrimp Amendment 14 and review Reef Fish 31/Shrimp 15 options. 1:30-4 p.m.—The Joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Management Committee continues. 4-5 p.m.—The Shrimp Management Committee will meet to receive a report of the Texas shrimp closure analyses and the Shrimp AP recommendations. 5-5:30 p.m. (CLOSED COUNCIL SESSION) The Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)Selection Committee, which met prior to the meeting, will give their recommendations for Select SSC Subcommittee members to monitor NMFS' Design and Analysis Group. *Wednesday, January 24, 2007,* 8:30-10:30 a.m. —The Data Collection Committee will meet to discuss the Committee's charge under the Council's Standard Operating Practices and Procedures's (SOPPS); consider action to require a recreational saltwater fishing license/permit in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); discuss reporting requirements for the recreational-for-hire sector; review the existing Gulf charter and head boat surveys; and discuss the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act recreational data provision for a vessel registry along with state licensing and reporting requirements. 10:30-11:30 a.m.—The Mackerel Management Committee will meet to review an update on status criteria and acceptable biological catch
(ABC)projections for king mackerel and to approve Amendment 18 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)for public hearings. 1-3 p.m.—The Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum Committees will meet to discuss an Options Paper for an Aquaculture Amendment by possibly selecting preferred alternatives and scheduling public hearing locations. 3-3:45 p.m.—The Budget/Personnel Committee will meet to review the draft CY 2007 operating budget and consider increases in state liaison funding. 3:45-5:30 p.m.—The Migratory Species Management Committee will meet to discuss a proposed rule by NMFS to relax swordfish regulations and highly migratory species essential fish habitat. The committee reports will be presented to the Council for consideration on Thursday January 25, and on Friday, January 26, 2007. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the Council and Committees for discussion, in accordance with the M-SFCMA, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Council and Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the M-SFCMA, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. In order to further allow for such adjustments and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice. These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: December 29, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-22597 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 122806B] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Recreational Advisory Panel (Panel) in January, 2007 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: *Meeting address* : The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Ferncroft Hotel, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923; telephone:
(978)777-2500; fax:
(978)750-7991. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council has begun development of Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This amendment will adjust measures as necessary to continue the stock rebuilding programs adopted by Amendment 13 to the FMP on May 1, 2004. The amendment may also consider other adjustments to management measures or alternatives to the effort control system currently used to manage the multispecies fishery. On November 6, 2006, the Council published a Notice of Intent
(NOI)to prepare a Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS)to support this amendment (71 FR 64941) and announced a scoping period that ended on December 29, 2006. The Panel will meet to develop recommendations for management of the recreational fishery and the Panel may consider allocations to the recreational fishery, management measures or other issues. Recommendations of the Panel will be considered by the Council at future meetings. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: December 29, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-22598 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Notice of Availability of a Final Regional Restoration Plan for Region 2, for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Program *Summary:* Notice is hereby given that a document entitled “Final Regional Restoration Plan for Region 2” is available to the public. This document has been prepared by the state and federal natural resource trustee agencies (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI); Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator's Office (LOSCO); and Louisiana Departments of Environmental Quality (LDEQ); Natural Resources (LDNR); and Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF)) to address natural resource injuries resulting from discharges of oil in Region 2 of the State of Louisiana. The Final Regional Restoration Plan for Region 2 is the first of nine regional plans being prepared under the statewide Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program developed by NOAA, DOI, and the State of Louisiana. *For Further Information Contact:* Requests for copies of the “Final Regional Restoration Plan for Region 2” or for further information, request or contact Tony Penn, Southeast Branch Chief, NOAA/Assessment and Restoration Division, 1305 East-West Highway, SSMC #4, 10th floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone number 301-713-3038 x197; fax number 301-713-4387; e-mail address: *Tony.Penn@noaa.gov.* Or contact Charles Armbruster, RRP Program Manager, Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator's Office, 150 Third Street, Suite 405, Baton Rouge, LA 70801; phone number 225-219-5800; fax number 225-219-5802; e-mail address: *Charles.Armbruster@losco.state.la.us.* When submitting a request, please indicate whether you would like the document on compact disk, a hardcopy, or the Internet address to download an electronic copy. *Supplementary Information:* Louisiana's economy is based, in part, on the state's vast natural resources. Both renewable (hunting, fishing, forest products) and nonrenewable (cultural, oil, natural gas) resources are important, and the industries associated with each have coexisted for years. Although Louisiana's oil and gas industry tries to avoid adverse impacts on renewable natural resources, injuries do occur as a result of oil spill incidents. The impact of these incidents on fish, wildlife, and the environment can be significant and adversely affect the industries and communities depending on natural resources for commerce and recreation. Federal and Louisiana natural resource trustees have developed a statewide Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program (RRP Program) to assist them in carrying out their Natural Resource Damage Assessment
(NRDA)responsibilities for discharges or substantial threats of discharges of oil. Goals of the statewide Louisiana RRP Program are to:
(1)Expedite and reduce the cost of the NRDA process;
(2)Provide for consistency and predictability by describing in detail the NRDA process, thereby increasing understanding of the process by the public and industry; and
(3)Increase restoration of lost trust resources and services injured by oil spills. The Louisiana RRP Program identifies the statewide program structure, decision-making process, and criteria that are used to select the restoration project(s) that may be implemented to restore the trust resources and services injured by an oil spill. The Louisiana RRP Program divides the state into nine regions. For each region, a Regional Restoration Plan
(RRP)will be developed that identifies: the affected environment and resources; potentially injured trust resources and services; appropriate restoration types for each of the potentially injured resources and services; and available restoration projects that have been identified to date. The Final RRP for Region 2 covers an area of southeast Louisiana, including all or part of the following parishes: Ascension, Assumption, Jefferson, Lafourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. John the Baptist. The natural resource trustees (NOAA, DOI, LOSCO, LDEQ, LDNR, LDWF) are designated pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 2706(c), Executive Order 12777, and the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR 300.600 and 300.605. Pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. 30:2460, the State of Louisiana Oil Spill Contingency Plan (September 1995) describes the state trust resources to include the following: Vegetated wetlands, surface waters, ground waters, air, soil, wildlife, aquatic life, and the appropriate habitats on which they depend. DOI has been designated as trustee for the natural resources that it manages or controls. Examples of those resources are described in the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR 300.600(b)(2) and (3), and include the following and their supporting ecosystems: migratory birds, anadromous fish, endangered species and marine mammals, federally owned minerals, certain federally managed water resources, and natural resources located on, over, or under land administered by DOI. NOAA's trust resources include, but are not limited to: commercial and recreational fish species, anadromous and catadromous fish species, marshes and other coastal habitats, marine mammals, and endangered and threatened marine species. Pursuant to 15 CFR 990.56, the natural resource trustees are authorized to develop regional restoration plans as part of the Oil Pollution Act's mandate for the trustees to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of natural resources and services injured by oil spill incidents and to compensate for interim losses of such resources and services. The Administrative Record
(AR)for the statewide RRP Program and RRP for Region 2 is being maintained at:
(1)NOAA Assessment and Restoration Division, SSMC #4, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3281;
(2)Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator's Office, Suite 405, 150 Third Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70801; and
(3)*http://www.losco.state.la.us/admin/RRP/RRPprogram_view.asp* . The AR includes documents that the trustees relied upon during the development of the Final RRP for Region 2. Pursuant to 15 CFR 990.23 & 990.56, the trustees sought public involvement in developing the Final RRP for Region 2, through public review and comment of the documents contained in the AR, as well as through publication of the “Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS)”. Dated: December 11, 2006. Ken Barton, Director, Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22484 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Waterway Management Plan in the City and County of San Luis Obispo, CA AGENCY: Department of the Army—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (Regulatory Branch), in coordination with the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (Zone 9) (District) and the City of San Luis Obispo, has completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Waterway Management Plan. The District and City require authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for activities anticipated necessary to implement a long-term stream maintenance and management program to address regional flooding and flood control along San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries. Historically, project planning for activities and development within and affecting the stream corridor has been managed or guided by the policies of various different agencies with no concerted effort at consistent management techniques. The Waterway Management Plan, the Stream Maintenance and Management Plan and the Drainage Design Manual, collectively referred to as the Program, represent a consolidated effort to provide a consistent management program for the waterway and its watershed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions or comments concerning the Final EIS/EIR should be directed to Mr. Bruce Henderson, Senior Project Manager, North Coast Section, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2151 Alessandro Drive, Suite 110, Ventura CA, 93001,
(805)585-2145. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None. Dated: December 21, 2006. David J. Castanon, Chief, Regulatory Branch, Los Angeles District. [FR Doc. E6-22599 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-KF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Correction notice. SUMMARY: On December 19, 2006, the Department of Education published a notice in the **Federal Register** (Page 75952, Column 3) for the information collection, “Impact Evaluation of Upward Bound's Increased Focus on Higher-Risk Students—Baseline Data Collection Protocols”. This notice hereby corrects the number of responses to 10,890. The Acting Leader, Information Policy and Standards Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Dated: December 28, 2006. James Hyler, Acting Leader, Information Policy and Standards Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. [FR Doc. E6-22610 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [CA-06-01; FRL-8265-9] Notice of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Final Determination for Knauf Insulation, GmbH, Shasta Lake, CA AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). ACTION: Notice of final action. SUMMARY: This notice announces that on November 14, 2006, the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) of EPA denied review of all petitions for review of a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permit (“Permit”) that EPA Region 9 issued to Knauf Insulation, GmbH (“Knauf”). The Permit was issued pursuant to the PSD regulations under 40 CFR 52.21. DATES: The effective date of the EAB's decision, and the Permit, is November 14, 2006. Pursuant to Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), judicial review of this permit decision, to the extent it is available, may be sought by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 60 days of January 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: The relevant documents for the Permit are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following address: EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. To arrange viewing of these documents, contact Shaheerah Kelly at
(415)947-4156 or *kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov.* The Permit is also available at *http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/knauf.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaheerah Kelly, EPA, Region 9, Air Division (AIR-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Background Information? III. What Did the EAB Decide? I. What Action Is EPA Taking? We are notifying the public of a final decision by the EAB on the Permit issued by EPA Region 9 pursuant to the PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21. II. What Is the Background Information? Knauf is an existing fiberglass manufacturing facility located in Shasta Lake, Shasta County, California. The Shasta County Air Quality Management District (“AQMD”) issued Knauf's PSD permit on March 22, 2000 authorizing construction of the facility. The facility has been in operation since 2002. In March 2003, EPA rescinded the PSD delegation for many California air pollution permitting agencies, including the Shasta County AQMD which is the air pollution permitting agency in Shasta County. Based on this action and since the Shasta County AQMD did not subsequently request PSD delegation, EPA is currently the PSD permitting authority within Shasta County, California. Knauf submitted a PSD application to EPA Region 9 to revise the facility's Permit. After consideration of the PSD application, EPA Region 9 issued the draft revised Permit on January 31, 2006, for public review and comment. On May 11, 2006, after providing an opportunity for public comment and a public hearing, EPA issued the revised Permit. The revised Permit changed Knauf's previous Permit by
(1)establishing nitrogen oxide (“NO <sup>X</sup> ”) emission limitations of 16.5 pounds per hour (“lb/hr”) and 1.76 pounds per ton of glass pulled (“lb/ton”) at the manufacturing line main stack, and
(2)changing particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (“PM10”) emission limitations to 28.4 lb/hr and 3.03 lb/ton of at the manufacturing line main stack, and 0.67 lb/hr and 0.07 lb/ton at the glass melting furnace stack. The revised Permit also included other changes related to the changes in the emission limitations. Subsequent to the issuance of the revised Permit, the EAB received six petitions requesting review of the revised Permit. The EAB denied review of all six petitions. III. What Did the EAB Decide? Four of the petitions raised public health concerns and general concerns about the Knauf facility which were already addressed in EPA Region 9's response to comments for the revised Permit. The EAB denied review of these petitions because they failed to demonstrate why EPA Region 9's response was clearly erroneous or otherwise warranted review. For one of these petitions, which asserted that the original permit issued in 2000 violated the CAA by allowing the facility to be built, the EAB ruled that the assertion did not relate to any condition of the revised Permit issued by EPA Region 9 and was, therefore, beyond the scope of the EAB proceeding. One petition related to two documents filed with the EAB titled “Notice of Appeal” and “Request for Time Extension.” The Notice of Appeal asked for permission to file an appeal with the EAB, but did not raise any specific objections to the revised Permit, and the Extension Request stated only that the petitioners were waiting to receive certain information from EPA Region 9. The EAB denied review because the petitioners did not articulate any specific objections to the revised Permit and did not establish good cause for extending the time to file an appeal. One petition objected to the location of the Knauf facility and asked for reconsideration of the permitting decision. The EAB denied review since the petitioner did not file the petition in a timely manner and did not participate in the permitting process during the public comment period for the draft revised Permit. Readers interested in more detail on the appeal issues raised by the petitioners and the reasons for the EAB's denial of review may download EAB's Order Denying Review from the EAB Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/eab.* Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1), for purposes of judicial review, final agency action occurs when a final PSD permit is issued and agency review procedures are exhausted. This notice is being published pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(2), which requires notice of any final agency action regarding a PSD permit to be published in the **Federal Register** . This notice constitutes notice of the final agency action denying review of the revised Permit and, consequently, notice of the EPA Region 9's issuance of the Permit (PSD Permit No. Permit No. NSR 4-4-4, SAC 03-01) to Knauf. If available, judicial review of these determinations under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA may be sought only by the filing of a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, within 60 days from the date on which this notice is published in the **Federal Register** . Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, this determination shall not be subject to later judicial review in any civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement. Dated: December 20, 2006. Kerry J. Drake, Acting Director, Air Division, Region 9. [FR Doc. E6-22561 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FR1-6682-8] Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 202-564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements
(EISs)was published in FR dated April 7, 2006 (71 FR 17845). Draft EISs *EIS No. 20060373, ERP No. D-BLM-K65319-CA* , Sierra Resource Management Plan, Provide Direction for Managing Public Lands, Several Counties, CA. *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concern about impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat, and to public health from exposure to naturally occurring asbestos. Rating EC2. *EIS No. 20060418, ERP No. D-FHW-L40231-WA* , East Lake Sammamish Master Plan Trail, Design and Construct an Alternative Non-Motorized Transportation and Multi-Use Recreational Trail, Funding and U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, King County, WA. *Summary:* EPA does not object to the proposed project. EPA does recommend including additional information in the EIS regarding BMPs, a vegetation management plan, and water quality monitoring. Rating LO. Final EISs *EIS No. 20060468, ERP No. F-NPS-K61159-CA* , Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, General Management Plan, Middle and South Forks of the Kings River and North Forks of the Kern River, General Management Plan, Tulare and Fresno Counties, CA. *Summary:* EPA does not object to this project. *EIS No. 20060473, ERP No. F-FHW-H40189-MO* , Interstate 29/35 Paseo Bridge Corridor, Reconstruct and Widen I-29/35, Missouri River, North Kansas City and Kansas City, Clay and Jackson Counties, MO. *Summary:* EPA does not object to the proposed project. EPA does recommended that additional information be obtained about populations within the project area potentially sensitive to mobile source air toxics. *EIS No. 20060483, ERP No. F-UAF-K11021-GU* , Andersen Air Force Base (AFB), Establish and Operate an Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike (ISR/Strike) Capability, Guam. *Summary:* EPA continues to have concerns about cumulative environmental impacts and direct impacts to endangered species. *EIS No. 20060484, ERP No. F-NAS-A12042-00* , Mars Science Laboratory Mission (MSL), To Conduct Comprehensive Science on the Surface of Mars and Demonstrate Technological Advancements in the Exploration of Mars, Using a Radioisotope Power Source in 2009 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL. *Summary:* EPA does not object to the proposed action. Dated: December 29, 2006. Clifford Rader, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E6-22618 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6682-7] Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability *Responsible Agency:* Office of Federal Activities, General Information
(202)564-7167 or *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.* Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 12/25/2006 through 12/29/2006 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. *EIS No. 20060539, Draft Supplement, AFS, 00,* Northern Spotted Owl Management Plan, Removal or the Modification to the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measures, Standards and Guidelines (to the Northwest Forest Plan), Addresses the Effects of an Additional No-Action Alternative to the (July 2006) Draft Supplement and to the
(2004)Final Supplemental EIS, Northwest Forest Plan, OR, WA, and CA, *Comment Period Ends:* 04/05/2007, *Contact:* Carol Hughes 503-808-2661. *EIS No. 20060540, Final EIS, NOA, LA,* PROGRAMMATIC—The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Establishing and Implementation of Natural Resource Trust Mandates, LA, *Wait Period Ends:* 02/20/2007, *Contact:* Tony Penn, 301-713-2990 Ext 197. *EIS No. 20060541, Draft EIS, BLM, ID,* Pocatello Resource Management Plan, To Provide Direction for Managing Public Lands in the Idaho Falls Districts, Pocatello Field Office (PFO), Implementation, Several Counties, ID, *Comment Period Ends:* 04/04/2007, *Contact:* Terry Lee Smith, 208-478-6340. *EIS No. 20060542, Draft EIS, FRC, 00,* Spokane River and Post Falls Hydroelectric Project, Applications for two New Licenses for Existing 14.75
(mw)Post Falls No. 12606 and 122.9
(mw)Spokane River No. 2545, Kootenai and Benewah Counties, ID and Spokane, Lincoln and Stevens Counties, WA, *Comment Period Ends:* 02/20/2007, *Contact:* John Blair, 202-502-6092. *EIS No. 20060543, Final EIS, COE, CA,* San Juan Creek and Western San Mateo Creek Watershed Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), Proposed Watershed-Based SAMP to Balance Aquatic Resource Protection and Reasonable Economic Development, Southern Portion of Orange County, CA, *Wait Period Ends:* 02/05/2007, *Contact:* Jae Chung, 213-452-3292. *EIS No. 20060544, Final EIS, FRC, NY,* Niagara Project, Hydroelectric Relicensing Application FERC No. 2216, Niagara River, Niagara County, NY, *Wait Period Ends:* 02/05/2007 *Contact:* Steven Kartalia, 202-502-6131. *EIS No. 20060545, Final EIS, FTA, TX,* Southeast Corridor Project, Proposed Fixed-Guideway Transit System, Funding, Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) of Harris County, Houston, Harris County, TX, *Wait Period Ends:* 02/05/2007, *Contact:* John Sweek, 817-978-0550. Amended Notices *EIS No. 20060480, Draft EIS, BIA, NY,* Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands into Trust, Proposes to Transfer 17,370 Acre of Fee Land into Federal Trust Status, Oneida, Madison and New York Counties, NY, *Comment Period Ends:* 02/22/2007, *Contact:* Kurt G. Chandler, 615-564-6832. Revision of FR Notice Published 11/24/2006: Extending Comment Period from 01/08/2007 to 02/22/2007. *EIS No. 20060518, Draft EIS, FHW, IN,* I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis Project, I-69 Tier 2 Section 1: Evansville to Oakland City, from 1-64 to IN-64, Gibson and Warrick Counties, IN, *Comment Period Ends:* 02/20/2007, *Contact:* Anthony DeSimone, 317-226-5307. Revision of FR Notice Published 12/22/2006: Correction to Title. Dated: December 29, 2006. Clifford Rader, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E6-22604 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8266-3] El Monte Operable Unit of San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed CERCLA Administrative Settlement Under Section 122(h)(1) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site in El Monte, Los Angeles County, California with the City of El Monte, California. The settlement is entered into pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1) and it requires the City of El Monte to pay $160,000 to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the City of El Monte pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a), and Section 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973. For thirty
(30)days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from James Collins, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, ORC-3, San Francisco, CA 94105, telephone number 415-972-3894. Comments should reference the El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabrile Valley Superfund Site in El Monte, California and EPA Docket No. 2006-24 and should be addressed to James Collins at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Collins, Assistant Regional Counsel (ORC-3), Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; phone:
(415)972-3894; fax:
(415)947-3570; e-mail: *collins.jim@epa.gov* . Dated: December 21, 2006. Keith Takata, Director, Superfund Division, Region IX. [FR Doc. E6-22636 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EXPORT-IMPORT BANK Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank, as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is soliciting comments from the public concerning the proposed collection of information to
(1)evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the paper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection of information;
(3)enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriated automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 2007 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB, Room 10202, Washington, DC 20503
(202)395-3897. *Titles and Form Numbers:* Export-Import Bank of the United States Application for Long-Term Loan or Guarantee, EIB 95-10. *OMB Number:* 3048-0013. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Need and Use:* The information requested enables the applicant to provide Ex-Im Bank, with the information necessary to determine eligibility for the loan and guarantee programs. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Respondents:* Entities involved in the provision of financing or arranging of financing for foreign buyers of U.S. exports. *Estimated Annual Respondents:* 86 (revised). *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 2.0 hours (revised). *Estimated Annual Burden:* 172 hours. *Frequency of Response:* When applying for a long-time preliminary or final commitment. Dated: December 27, 2006. Solomon Bush, Agency Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 06-9978 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 14
Traces to 14 documents
CFR
- Changed circumstances review under section 751(b) of the Act.§ 351.216
- Revocation of orders; termination of suspended investigations.§ 351.222
- Review procedures.§ 351.221
- Restoration selection---use of a Regional Restoration Plan or existing restoration project.§ 990.56
- Compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations.§ 990.23
- Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.§ 52.21
U.S. Code
11 references not yet in our index
- 19 CFR 353.25(b)
- 727 F. Supp. 625
- 19 CFR 351
- 19 CFR 353.54(e)(1988)
- 19 CFR 353.54
- 50 CFR 216.103
- 40 CFR 300.600
- 40 CFR 300.600(b)(2)
- 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1)
- 40 CFR 124.19(f)(2)
- 40 CFR 1506.9
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice; proposed authorization for an incidental take authorization; request for comments
F. Supp.727 F. Supp. 625
Cite19 CFR 353.25(b)
Cite19 CFR 351
Cites 25 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources