Notices. Proposed Addition to and Deletions from Procurement List

38,300 words·~174 min read·/register/2007/04/06/07-1712

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Proposed Addition to and Deletions from Procurement List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List a product to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete services previously furnished by such agencies. *Comments Must be Received on or Before:* May 6, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3259. For Further Information or to Submit Comments Contact: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:

(703)603-7740, Fax:

(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. Additions If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product will be required to procure the product listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following product is proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Products Trunk Locker, Barracks. *NSN:* 8460-00-243-3234—Trunk Locker, Barracks. *NPA:* BSW, Inc., Butte, MT. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. *Coverage:* C-List—Additional 25% of the government requirement for Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. Deletions Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following product is proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Products Trunk Locker, Barracks. *NSN:* 8460-00-243-3234—Trunk Locker, Barracks. *NPA:* BSW, Inc., Butte, MT. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. *Coverage:* C-List—Additional 25% of the government requirement for Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. Deletions Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List. End of Certification The following services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List: Services *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Custodial, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Range Research Station, 2000 18th Street, Woodward, OK. *NPA:* Oklahoma's Action Rehabilitation Centers, Inc., Woodward, OK. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Department of Agriculture, ARS, OK. *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Custodial, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Institutional Hearing Program, 7405CI Highway 75 South, Huntsville, TX. *NPA:* Tri-County Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services, Conroe, TX. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Houston, TX. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E7-6470 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Scope Clarification Request—Foreign-Trade Subzone 57B, (Construction Equipment), Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc.—Skyland, North Carolina A request for clarification of scope has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc. (Volvo CENA), operator of Foreign-Trade Subzone 57B. A grant of authority for Volvo CENA's subzone was issued on May 15, 2001 (Board Order 1164), for the manufacture of construction equipment, specifically, wheel loaders and articulated haulers (66 FR 28890, 5/25/01). The scope of manufacturing authority was expanded on August 21, 2003 (Board Order 1284), to include skid-steer loaders and compaction rollers (68 FR 52383, 9/3/03). Volvo CENA now seeks clarification as to whether its scope includes authority to fabricate and assemble construction equipment cabs (HTS 8431.49 and HTS 8708.29), rather than import the finished cabs from the parent company (Volvo CE) in Sweden. Volvo CENA's request indicates that the foreign-sourced materials under the proposed expanded scope fall into categories similar to those already included in the company's existing scope of authority. Duty rates on the imported components to be used for cab production range from duty-free to 9.9 percent. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed below. The closing period for their receipt is May 7, 2007. A copy of the request is available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U. S. Department of Commerce, Room 2814B, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230. For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at christopher_kemp@ita.doc.gov or

(202)482-0862. Dated: March 28, 2007. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-6507 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-802, A-570-893] Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received timely requests to conduct administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (“shrimp”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”) and the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The anniversary month of these orders is February. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating these administrative reviews. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Villanueva (Vietnam) or Christopher Riker (PRC), 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)482-3208 or

(202)482-3441, respectively. Background On February 2, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** its Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 5007 (“Notice of Opportunity”). In the Notice of Opportunity, the Department stated “for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).” See Notice of Opportunity at 72 FR 5008. PRC The Department received timely requests from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (“Petitioners”), the Louisiana Shrimp Association (“LSA”), Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (“Evergreen”), Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. (“Asian Seafoods”), Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd. Zhao An, Fujian (“Hai Li”), 1 and the Allied Pacific Group, 2 in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the anniversary month of February, for administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on shrimp from the PRC. Petitioners requested an administrative review for 401 companies, while LSA requested an administrative review for 162 companies. Subsequently, Petitioners withdrew their request for review for the PRC for all but eight companies. See Petitioners' letters dated March 1, 2007, March 16, 2007, and March 27, 2007. 1 In its review request, Hai Li noted that it is also known as Haili Aquatic Co., Ltd. Zhaoan, Fujian. 2 The Allied Pacific Group consists of Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd., Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd., Zhanjiang Allied Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd., Allied Pacific (H.K.) Co., Ltd., and King Royal Investments Ltd. With respect to the LSA's requests for administrative review the Department notes that, for the following 58 companies, the addresses provided for those entities were identical to those provided to the Department in the previous administrative review and were found to be undeliverable: Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd., Allied Pacific Food, Chengai Nichi Lan Foods Co., Ltd., Dhin Foong Trdg, Dongri Aquatic Products Freezing Plants Shengping, Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and Technology, Formosa Plastics, Fuqing Xuhu Aquatic Food Trdg, Fuchang Trdg, Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic Food Trdg, Fuqing City Dongyi Trdg, Fuqing Dongwei Aquatic Products Industry Co., Ltd., Fuqing Dongyi Trdg, Fuqing Fuchang Trdg, Fuqing Longwei Aquatic Foodstuff, Gallant Ocean (Liangjiang) Co., Ltd., Gaomi Shenyuan Foodstuff, Guangxi Lian Chi Home Appliance Co, Hainan Jiadexin Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., IT Logistics, Juxian Zhonglu Foodstuffs, Logistics Harbour Dock, Longwei Aquatic Foodstuff, Master International Logistics, Meizhou Aquatic Products, Nichi Lan Food Co., Ltd. Chen Hai, P&T International Trading, Perfection Logistics Service, Phoenix Seafood, Putuo Fahua Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., Qingdao Dayang Jian Foodstuffs, Qinhuangdao Jiangxin Aquatic Food, Round The Ocean Logistics, Second Aquatic Food, Second Aquatic Foodstuffs Fty, Shandong Chengshun Farm Produce Trd, Shandong Sanfod Group, Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd., Shantou Junyuan Pingyuan Foreign Trading, Shantou Sez Xuhoa Fastness Freeze Aquatic Factory Co, South Bay Intl, Taizhou Lingyang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., Tianhe Hardware & Rigging, Xiamen Sungiven Imports & Exports, Yantai Guangyuan Foods Co, Yantai Xuehai Foodstuffs, Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., Zhangjiang Newpro Food Co., Ltd., Zhanjiang CNF Sea Products Engineering Ltd., Zhanjiang Fuchang Aquatic Products, Zhanjiang Jebshin Seafood Limited, Zhanjiang Shunda Aquatic Products, Zhejiang Taizhou Lingyang Aquatic Products Co., Zhejiang Zhongda, Zhoushan Guangzhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., Zhoushan International Trade Co., Ltd., Zhoushan Provisions & Oil Food Export and Import Co., Ltd., and Zhoushan Xi'an Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2006 Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent to Rescind 2004/2006 New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10645, 10647-8 (March 9, 2007) (“PRC Shrimp 2004-2006 Preliminary Results”) and Memorandum to the File, from Anya Naschak, regarding: *Placement of Undeliverable Addresses Information from the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China on the Record of the 2006-2007 Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China* , dated April 2, 2007 (“PRC Undeliverable Addresses Memo”) at Attachments I and II. The LSA requested that the Department reconsider its decision, as defined in the Notice of Opportunity, to not accept a review request for a company absent new address information. See LSA's PRC Review Requests at 4-5. However, although the LSA states that it attempted to find additional address information, the LSA has provided no additional address information for any of these companies, beyond what was previously provided in the 2004-2006 administrative review of shrimp from the PRC. See PRC Undeliverable Addresses Memos at Attachment I. Therefore, although the LSA requested that the Department reconsider its decision, we continue to find that it is inappropriate to initiate an administrative review of companies which we know that we cannot locate. Based on previous unsuccessful efforts by the Department to locate these companies, further efforts would be futile, absent new information as to their location. Accordingly, the Department is not initiating on the above-referenced 58 companies from the PRC. In addition, the LSA has requested that the Department conduct an administrative review from the PRC of Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (“Guolian”). However, Guolian is excluded from the antidumping duty order on shrimp from the PRC. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 5149 (February 1, 2005) (“PRC Shrimp Order”). Thus, the Department is also not initiating an administrative review for Guolian. Therefore, the Department is hereby initiating the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from the PRC for the remaining 105 companies for which the Department has received a sufficient request for review. Vietnam The Department received timely requests from Petitioners, the LSA, and certain individual companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the anniversary month of February, for administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on shrimp from Vietnam. Petitioners requested an administrative review for 92 companies, while the LSA requested an administrative review for 84 companies from Vietnam. On February 28, 2007, Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co. Ltd. (“Grobest”), Vietnam Fish-One Co., Ltd (“Vietnam Fish-One”), and 20 other individual exporters, 3 self-requested an administrative review of their sales during the POR. On March 30, 2007, Petitioners withdrew their review request of 58 companies. 3 Those Vietnamese companies listed below with an (*) are the additional 20 exporters self-requesting an administrative review. Therefore, the Department is hereby initiating administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Vietnam for the 100 companies for which the Department has received a sufficient request for review. Initiation of Reviews In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we are initiating administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on shrimp from Vietnam and the PRC. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews on approximately February 28, 2008. Period to be reviewed Antidumping Duty Proceeding Vietnam: 4,5 Vietnam: 4,5 02/01/06-01/31/07 AAAS Logistics Agrimex Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd American Container Line An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (Agifish) Angiang Agricultural Technology Service Company Aquatic Products Trading Company Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited Bentre Frozen Aquaproduct Exports Bentre Aquaproduct Imports & Exports C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (“SEAPRIMEXCO”)* Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (“CADOVIMEX”)* Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Company (Cadovimex) Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (“Cafatex Corp.”)* Cantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex) Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (“Camranh Seafoods”) Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation, or Camau Seafood Factory No. 4 (“CAMIMEX”)* Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import Export Company (“CATACO”)* Can Tho Agricultural Products Can Tho Seafood Exports Cautre Enterprises Coastal Fishery Development Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec) Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec) C P Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd C P Livestock Cuulong Seaproducts Company (“Cuu Long Seapro”)* Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (“Cuulong Seapro”) Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation and its wholly owned affiliated Tho Quang Seafood Processing and Export Company (“Seaprodex Danang”)* Dong Phuc Huynh Duyen Hai Bac Lieu Company (“T.K. Co.”) Frozen Seafoods Fty Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32 General Imports & Exports Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co. Ltd Grobest & I-Mei Industry Vietnam Hacota Hai Thuan Export Seaproduct Processing Co., Ltd Hai Viet Hanoi Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (“Seaprodex Hanoi”) Hatrang Frozen Seaproduct Fty Hoa Nam Marine Agricultural Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (“Incomfish”) Khanh Loi Trading Kien Gang Seaproduct Import and Export Company (“Kisimex”) Kien Gang Sea Products Import and Export Company (“Kisimex”) Kim Anh Co., Ltd Lamson Import-Export Foodstuffs Corporation Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company (“Minh Hai Jostoco”)* Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (“Seaprodex Minh Hai”)* Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (Seaprimex Co) Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd Minh Phat Seafood Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.)* Minh Phu Seafood Corp. Minh Phu Seafood Corporation Minh Qui Seafood Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise* Ngoc Sinh Seafoods Nha Trang Company Limited Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (“Nha Trang Fisco”) Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (“Nha Trang Seafoods”)* Pataya Food Industry (Vietnam) Ltd Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export Co., Ltd.* Phuong Nam Co. Ltd.* Phuong Nam Seafood Co. Ltd Saigon Orchide Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (“Fimex VN”)* Sea Product Sea Products Imports & Exports Seafood Processing Imports-Exports Seaprodex Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (“Stampimex”)* Sonacos Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd Song Huong ASC Joint Stock Company Special Aquatic Products Joint Stock Company (“Seaspimex”) Tacvan Frozen Seafoods Processing Export Company Thami Shipping & Airfreight Thanh Long Thien Ma Seafood Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation and its separate factories Frozen Seafood Factory No. 32 and Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory (Thuan Phuoc)* Tourism Material and Equipment Company (Matourimex Hochiminh City Branch) Truc An Company UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company* Viet Foods Co., Ltd. (“Viet Foods”)* Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (“Vietnam Fish One Co. Ltd.”) Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (“Vietnam Fish One Co. Ltd.”) Viet Nhan Company Vietnam Fish-One Co., Ltd. (Vietnam Fish-One) Vietnam Northern Viking Technologie Co., Ltd Vietnam Northern Viking Technology Co., Ltd Vilfood Co Vinh Loi Import Export Company (“Vimexco”)* Vita V N Seafoods PRC: 6 02/01/06-01/31/07 Allied Pacific (H.K.) Co. Ltd Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhangjiang) Co., Ltd Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co. Ltd Ammon International Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd Aquatic Foodstuffs FTY Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd Beihai Zhengwu Industry Co., Ltd Chaoyang Qiaofeng Group Co., Ltd. (Shantou Qiofeng (Group) Co., Ltd.) (Shantou/Chaoyang Qiaofeng) CITIC Heavy Machinery Dafu Foods Industry Dalian FTZ Sea-Rich International Trading Co., Ltd Dalian Shan Li Food Dalian Shanhai Seafood Dongri Aquatic Products Freezing Plants Dongshan Xinhefa Food Fuchang Aquatic Products Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic Food Co., Ltd Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Products Co., Ltd Gallant Ocean International Gallant Seafoods Go Harvest Aquatic Products Guangzhou Lingshan Aquatic Products Guolian Aquatic Products Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd. Zhao An, Fujian/Haili Aquatic Co., Ltd. Zhaoan Fujian Hainan Fruit Vegetable Food Allocation Co., Ltd Hainan Golden Spring Foods Co., Ltd/ Hainan Brich Aquatic Products Co., Ltd Hainan Jiadexin Foodstuff Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd Jinhang Aquatic Industry Kaifeng Ocean Sky Industry King Royal Investments, Ltd Laiyang Hengrun Foodstuff Laiyang Luhua Foodstuffs Leizhou Zhulian Frozen Food Co., Ltd Longsheng Aquatic Product Luk Ka Paper Industry Marnex Meizhou Aquatic Meizhou Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen Industry Co., Ltd North Supreme Seafood (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd Ocean Freezing Industry & Trade General Pingyang Xinye Aquatic Products Co., Ltd Polypro Plastics Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd Red Garden Food Red Garden Foodstuff Rongcheng Tongda Aquatic Food Ruian Huasheng Aquatic Products Savvy Seafood Inc. Sealord North America Seatrade International Shanghai Linghai Fisheries Economic and Trading Co. Shantou City Qiaofeng Group Shantou Freezing Aquatic Product Food Stuffs Co. Shantou Jinhang Aquatic Industry Co., Ltd Shantou Jinyuan District Mingfeng Quick-Frozen Factory Shantou Long Feng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Shantou Longfeng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.) Shantou Longsheng Aquatic Product Shantou Ocean Freezing Industry and Trade General Corporation Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co Shantou Ruiyuan Industry Co., Ltd Shantou Shengping Oceanstar Business Co., Ltd Shantou Wanya Food Factory Co., Ltd Shantou Yuexing Enterprise Company Silvertie Holding Spectrum Plastics Taizhou Zhonghuan Industrial Co., Ltd The Second Aquatic Food Weifang Taihua Food Weifang Yongqiang Food Ind Wenling Xingdi Aquatic Products Xuwen Hailang Breeding Co., Ltd Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd Yantai Wei-Cheng Food Co., Ltd Yantai Xinlai Trade Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd. Hong Kong Zhangjiang Bobogo Ocean Co., Ltd Zhanjiang Allied Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and Technology Co., Ltd Zhanjiang Go-Harvest Aquatic Products Co., Ltd Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co. Ltd Zhanjiang Runhai Foods Co., Ltd Zhanjiang Universal Seafood Corp Zhejiang Cereals, Oils & Foodstuff Import & Export Co., Ltd Zhejiang Daishan Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd Zhejiang Evernew Seafood Co., Ltd Zhejiang Xingyang Import & Export Zhejiang Xintianjiu Sea Products Co., Ltd Zhejiang Zhenlong Foodstuffs Co., Ltd Zhenjaing Evergreen Aquatic Products Science & Technology Co., Ltd Zhoushan Cereals, Oils, and Foodstuffs Import and Export Co., Ltd Zhoushan Diciyuan Aquatic Products Zhoushan Guotai Aquatic Products Co., Ltd Zhoushan Haichang Food Co Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd Zhoushan Jingzhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd Zhoushan Lizhou Fishery Co., Ltd Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., Ltd Zhoushan Xifeng Aquatic Co., Ltd Zhoushan Zhenyang Developing Co., Ltd ZJ CNF Sea Product Engineering Ltd. Viet Nhan Company 4 If one of the below-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of shrimp from Vietnam that have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single Vietnam entity of which the named exporter is a part. 5 Some companies appear to be listed twice, but there are two addresses provided in the administrative review requests for similar named companies and therefore, we are listing them separately. 6 If one of the below-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of shrimp from the PRC that have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporter is a part. Selection of Respondents Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise because of the large number of such companies, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department to limit its examination to either

(1)a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection; or

(2)exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be reasonably examined. Due to the large number of firms requested for these administrative reviews and the resulting administrative burden to review each company for which a request has been made, the Department is exercising its authority to limit the number of respondents selected for review. See Section 777A(c) of the Act. The Department intends to examine the largest exporters and producers by volume. Therefore, the Department has determined to send quantity and value (“Q&V”) questionnaires to the companies (or groups of companies where applicable) named above for the PRC and Vietnam to determine the largest exporters. See “Q&V QUESTIONNAIRE” section below for the procedures in this regard. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department's analysis mirrors that established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“Sparklers”), as amplified by the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“Silicon Carbide”). In accordance with the separate rate criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities. The Department recently modified the process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate rate status in NME investigations. See Policy Bulletin 05.1 Separate Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf* . The process now requires the submission of a separate rate status application. Due to the large number of companies subject to administrative reviews in both the Vietnam and the PRC proceedings, the Department is requiring all companies listed above that wish to qualify for separate rate status in these administrative reviews to complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate status application or certification, as described below. Because the Department intends to select the mandatory respondents by selecting the exporters/producers accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise exported to the United States during the period of review, the Department will require all potential respondents to demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate. For those respondents not representing the largest volume of subject merchandise exported to the United States, the Department will make separate rate determinations for each company. Only those respondents with separate rate status will be included in the group receiving the weighted-average margin calculated from the selected respondents. However, for any respondent that is determined later in this segment to have provided inaccurate information regarding its separate rate status, the Department may apply facts otherwise available with an adverse inference if it determines that such respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires companies for which a review was requested and who currently have separate rates status to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at *http://www.trade.gov/ia/* on the date of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Certifications for both Vietnam and the PRC are due to the Department by close of business on April 23, 2007. The deadline and requirement for submitting a certification applies equally to NME-owned companies, wholly foreign-owned companies, and foreign resellers who purchase the subject merchandise and export it to the United States. The Department requires, to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate, a separate rates status application for companies that do not currently have separate rates status. The separate rate status application will be available on the Department's Web site at *http://www.trade.gov/ia/* on the date of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. In responding to the separate rate status application, please refer to instructions contained within the application. Separate rate status applications are due to the Department by close of business on June 1, 2007. The deadline and requirement for submitting a separate rate status application applies equally to NME-owned companies, wholly-foreign owned companies, and foreign resellers that purchase the subject merchandise and export it to the United States. Further, due to the time constraints imposed by our statutory deadlines, the Department may be unable to grant any extensions for the submission of separate rate certifications or separate rate status applications. Q&V Questionnaire As discussed above, in advance of issuing the antidumping questionnaire, we will also be requiring all parties for whom a review is requested to respond to a Q&V questionnaire, which requests information on the respective quantity and U.S. dollar sales value of all exports of shrimp to the United States during the period February 1, 2006 through January 31, 2007. The Department will send the Q&V questionnaire to the companies (or groups of companies where applicable) named above. In addition, the Q&V questionnaire will be available on the Department's Web site at *http://www.trade.gov/ia/* . The responses to the Q&V questionnaire are due to the Department by close of business on April 23, 2007. Due to the time constraints imposed by our statutory and regulatory deadlines, the Department may be unable to grant any extensions for the submission of the Q&V questionnaire responses. In responding to the Q&V questionnaire, please refer to the instructions contained in the Q&V questionnaire. All firms requested for review and seeking separate rate status in these administrative reviews must submit a separate rate status application or certification (as appropriate) as described above, and a complete response to the Q&V questionnaire, within the time limits established, and discussed above in this notice of initiation, in order to receive consideration for separate rate status. For parties that fail to timely respond to the requisite separate rate status application/certification, or to the Q&V questionnaire, the Department may resort to the use of facts otherwise available, and may employ an adverse inference. All information submitted by respondents in this administrative review is subject to verification. As discussed above, due to the large number of parties in these proceedings, and the Department's need to complete its proceedings within the statutory deadlines, the Department will be limited in its ability to extend deadlines on the above submissions. As noted above, the separate rate certification, and the separate rate status application will be available on the Department's Web site at *http://www.trade.gov/ia/* , in addition, the Q&V questionnaire will be mailed to the parties named above and is also available on the Department's Web site at *http://www.trade.gov/ia/* . Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* . This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: April 2, 2007. James C. Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9. [FR Doc. E7-6502 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-838, A-331-802, A-533-840, A-549-822] Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) received timely requests to conduct administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (“shrimp”) from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand. The anniversary month of these orders is February. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222 of the Department's regulations, we are initiating these administrative reviews. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson at

(202)482-4929 (Brazil), David Goldberger at

(202)482-4136 (Ecuador), Elizabeth Eastwood at

(202)482-3874 (India), and Irina Itkin at

(202)482-0656 (Thailand), AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Background The Department received timely requests from petitioner, 1 , the Louisiana Shrimp Association (“LSA”), and certain individual companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the anniversary month of February 2007, for administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand covering 40 companies for Brazil, 64 companies for Ecuador, 313 companies for India, and 142 companies for Thailand. The Department is now initiating administrative reviews of the orders covering these companies. 1 Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (“Petitioner”). In accordance with the Department's recent statement in its notice of opportunity to request administrative reviews ( *see Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,* 72 FR 5007 (February 2, 2007)), we have not initiated administrative reviews with respect to those companies which the Department was unable to locate in prior segments and for which no new information as to the party's location was provided by the requestor. See “Incomplete Requests for Review” section of this notice for country-specific lists of the companies for which we did not initiate an administrative review. Initiation of Reviews In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we are initiating administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews on approximately February 28, 2008. Period to be reviewed Antidumping Duty Proceeding Brazil: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-351-838 2/1/06-1/31/07 Acarau Pesca Distr. de Pescado Imp. e Exp. Ltda Amazonas Industria Alimenticias SA Aquacultura Fortaleza Aquafort SA Aquafeed do Brasil Ltda—Note 1 Aquática Maricultura do Brasil Ltda—Note 1 Artico S/A. Bramex Brasil Mercantil Ltda Camanor—Produtos Marinhos Ltda Cida Central de Ind. E Distribuicao de Alimentos Ltda.—Note 2 Cina Cia Nordeste de Aquicultura Alimentacao Compescal—Comércio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.—Note 3 Compex Industria E Comercio de Pesca E Exportacao Ltd Empresa de Armazenagem Frigorifica Ltda.—Note 4 Guy Vautrin Importacao & Exportaco Intermarin Servicios Nauticos Ipesca ITA Fish—S.W.F. Importacao e Exportacao Ltda J K Pesca Ltda Leardini Pescados Ltda Lusomar Maricultura Ltda Maricultura Netuno SA—Note 4 Maricultura Rio Grandense Maricultura Tropical Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA—Note 5 MM Monteiro Pesca E Exportacao Ltda Mucuripe Pesca Ltda., Epp Natal Pesca Norte Pesca SA Orion Pesca Ltda Pesqueira Maguary Ltda.—Note 6 Potiguar Alimentos do Mar Ltda.—Note 7 Potipora Aquacultura Ltda Produmar—Cia Exportadora de Produtos do Mar—Note 2 Qualimar Comercio Importaçao E Exportacao Ltda Santa Lavinia Comercio e Exportacio Ltda Secom Aquicultura Comercio E Industria SA SM Pescados Indústria Comércio E Exportacão Ltda Sohagro Marina do Nordeste SA Tecmares Maricultura Ltda Torquato Pontes Pescados SA Valencia da Bahia Maricultura SA Ecuador: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-331-802 2/1/06-1/31/07 Agricola e Ind Ecuaplantatio Agrol Alberto Xavier Mosquera Rosado Alquimia Marina S.A Babychic S.A Camarones Comar Co Ltda Doblertel S.A Dunci S.A El Rosario Ersa S.A Empacadora Bilbo Bilbosa Empacadora del Pacifico S.A., Edpacif S.A Empacadora Dufer Cia. Ltda Empacadora Gran Mar S.A. (Empagran) Empacadora Nacional Empacadora y Exportadora Calvi Cia. Ltda Emprede Estar C.A Exporklore, S.A Exportadora Bananera Noboa Exportadora del Oceano Oceanexa C. A Exportadora del Oceano Pacifico OCEANPAC Fortumar Ecuador S.A Gambas del Pacifico Gondi, S.A Hectorosa Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila S.A Inepexa S.A Jorge Luis Benitez Lopez Karpicorp S.A Luis Loaiza Alvarez Mardex Cia. Ltda Marines CA Marisco (El Marisco) Mariscos de Chupadores Chupamar Mariscos del Ecuador c.l. Marecuador NaturalSelect S.A Negocios Industriales Real Nirsa SA Novapesca S.A OceanInvest S.A Oceanmundo S.A Oceanpro Operadora y Procesadora de Productos Marinos S.A. (Omarsa) Oyerly S.A P.C. Seafood S.A Pacfish S.A PCC Congelados & Frescos S.A Pescazul Peslasa SA Phillips Seafoods Procesadora del Rio Proriosa S.A Productos Cultivados del Mar Proc Promarisco, S.A Promarosa Productos Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos Soitgar Studmark, S.A Tecnica & Comercio de la Pesca Teco Tolyp S.A Transcity, S.A Transmarina C.A Transocean Ecuador Unilines Transport System India: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-533-840 2/1/06-1/31/07 Abad Fisheries Accelerated Freeze-Drying Co. ###### A.S. Marine Industries Pvt. Ltd Adani Exports Ltd Aditya Udyog Agri Marine Exports Ltd Al Mustafa Exp & Imp Alapatt Marine Exports All Seas Marine P. Ltd Allana Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd Allanasons Ltd Alsa Marine & Harvests Ltd Amalgam Foods & Beverages Limited Ameena Enterprises AMI Food Products Amison Foods Ltd Amison Seafoods Ltd Amulya Sea Foods Ananda Aqua Exports

(P)Ltd Ananda Foods Andaman Seafoods Pvt. Ltd Angelique Intl Anjaneya Seafoods Anjani Marine Traders Apex Exports Aqua Star Marine Foods Arsha Seafood Exports Pvt. Ltd ASF Seafoods Asvini Exports Asvini Fisheries Limited ###### Asvini Fisheries Private Limited Aswin Associates Ashwini Frozen Foods Atta Export Avanti Feeds Limited Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports Baby Marine Exports Baby Marine International Baby Marine Products Balaji Seafood Exports I Ltd Baraka Overseas Traders Bell Foods (Marine Division) Bharat Seafoods Bhatsons Aquatic Products Bhavani Seafoods Bhisti Exports Bijaya Marine Products Bilal Fish Suppliers Blue Water Foods & Exports Bluepark Seafoods Pvt. Ltd BMR Exports Brilliant Exports Britto Exports C P Aquaculture (India) Ltd Calcutta Seafoods Capital Freezing Complex Capithan Exporting Co Castlerock Fisheries Ltd Castlerock Seafoods Ltd Cham Exports Ltd Cham Ocean Treasures Co., Ltd Cham Trading Organization Chand International Chemmeens (Regd.) Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div.) Choice Canning Company Choice Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd Coastal Corporation Ltd ## Coastal Trawlers Ltd ## Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd Corlim Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd Corline Exports Danda Fisheries Dariapur Aquatic Pvt. Ltd Deepmala Marine Exports Devi Fisheries Limited Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited# Devi Seafoods Limited ###### Dhanamjaya Impex P. Ltd Diamond Seafoods Exports Digha Seafood Exports Dorothy Foods Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd El-Te Marine Products Esmario Export Enterprises Excel Ice Services/Chirag Int'l Falcon Marine Exports Limited Firoz & Company Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited ###### Forstar Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd Freeze Engineering Industries (Pvt. Ltd.) Frigerio Conserva Allana Limited Frontline Exports Pvt. Ltd G A Randerian Ltd GKS Business Associates Pvt. Ltd Gajula Exim P. Ltd GausiaCold Storage P. Ltd Gayatri Seafoods Geo Aquatic Products

(P)Ltd Geo Seafoods Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd Goan Bounty Gold Farm Foods

(P)Ltd Golden Star Cold Storage Gopal Seafoods Grandtrust Overseas

(P)Ltd Gtc Global Ltd GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd HA & R Enterprises HIC AFB Special Foods Pvt. Ltd Hanjar Ice and Cold Storage Hanswati Exports P. Ltd Haripriya Marine Food Exports Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd Hindustan Lever, Ltd Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd Hiravati International P. Ltd HMG Industries Ltd Honest Frozen Food Company I Ahamed & Company IFB Agro Industries Limited India CMS Adani Exports India Seafoods Indian Aquatic Products Indian Seafood Corporation Innovative Foods Limited/Amalgam Foods Ltd ##### ###### Interfish International Freezefish Exports InterSeas Exports Corporation Intersea ITC Ltd J R K Seafoods Pvt. Ltd Jagadeesh Marine Exports Jaya Satya Marine Exports Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd ###### Jinny Marine Traders K R M Marine Exports Ltd K V Marine Exports ##### Kadalkanny Frozen Foods Kader Exports Private Limited # Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited # Kalyanee Marine Kaushalya Aqua Marine Product Exports Pvt. Ltd Kay Kay Exports Keshodwala Foods Key Foods King Fish Industries Kings Marine Products KNR Marine Exports Koluthara Exports Ltd Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd Konkan Fisheries Pvt. Ltd KRM Group L.G. Seafoods Lakshmi Marine Products Lansea Foods Pvt. Ltd Laxmi Narayan Exports Lewis Natural Foods Ltd Liberty Frozen Foods Private Limited # Liberty Oil Mills# Libran Cold Storages

(P)Ltd Lotus Sea Farms M K Exports M.R.H. Trading Company Magnum Estate Private Limited Magnum Export Magnum Seafoods Private Limited Malabar Marine Exports Malnad Exports Pvt. Ltd Mamta Cold Storage Mangala Marine Exim Pvt. Ltd Mangala Sea Products Marina Marine Exports Marine Food Packers Meenaxi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd Miki Exports International MSC Marine Exporters ##### Mumbai Kamgar MGSM Ltd N.C. Das & Company Naga Hanuman Fish Packers Naik Ice & Cold Storage Naik Seafoods Ltd Nas Fisheries Pvt Ltd National Seafoods Company National Steel National Steel & Agro Ind Navayuga Exports Ltd ###### Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited New Royal Frozen Foods Nezami Rekha Sea Food NGR Aqua International Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd Noble Aqua Pvt. Ltd Nsil Exports Omsons Marines Ltd Padmaja Exports Partytime Ice Pvt Ltd Penver Products

(P)Ltd Philips Foods India Pvt Ltd Pijikay International Exports P Ltd Pisces Seafood International Premier Exports International Premier Marine Foods Premier Marine Products# Pronto Foods Pvt. Ltd R F. Exports R K Ice & Cold Storage Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd Rahul Foods

(GOA)Rahul International Raj International Raju Exports Ramalmgeswara Proteins & Foods Ltd Rameshwar Cold Storage Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd Raunaq Ice & Cold Storage Ravi Frozen Foods Ltd Raysons Aquatics Pvt. Ltd RBT Exports Regent Marine Industries Relish Foods Rohi Marine Private Ltd Royal Cold Storage (India) Pvt. Ltd Royal Link Exports Rubian Exports Ruby Marine Foods Ruchi Worldwide RVR Marine Products RVR Marine Products Private Limited S A Exports S B Agro (India) Ltd### S Chanchala Combines S K Exports

(P)Ltd SLS Exports Pvt. Ltd S S International Saanthi Seafoods Ltd Sabri Food Products Sagar Foods Sagar Grandhi Exports Pvt. Ltd Sagar Samrat Seafoods Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd#### Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd Salet Seafoods Pvt Ltd Samrat Middle East Exports

(P)Ltd Sanchita Marine Products P Ltd Sandhya Marines Limited Sarveshwari Ice & Cold Storage P Ltd Satya Seafoods Private Limited Satyam Marine Exports Sawant Food Products Sea Rose Marines

(P)Ltd Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd Sealand Fisheries Ltd Seaperl Industries Selvam Exports Private Limited Sharat Industries Ltd Sharon Exports Sheimar Seafoods Ltd Shimpo Exports Shipper Exporter National Steel Siddiq Seafoods Silver Seafood Sita Marine Exports Skyfish Sonia Fisheries Sourab Sprint Exports Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd Sree Vaialakshrm Exports Sreevas Export Enterprises Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports Ltd Sri Sakthi Marine Products P Ltd Sri Satya Marine Exports Sri Sidhi Freezers & Exporters Pvt. Ltd Sri Venkata Padmavathi Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd SSF Ltd Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited Star Fish Exports Sterling Foods Sun-Bio Technology Limited### Supreme Exports Surya Marine Exports Suryamitra Exim Private Limited Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd Swarna Seafoods Ltd TBR Exports Pvt Ltd Teekay Maine P. Ltd The Canning Industries (Cochin) Ltd The Waterbase Ltd Theva & Company Tony Harris Seafoods Ltd Tri Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd Trinity Exports Tri-Tee Seafood Company Triveni Fisheries P Ltd Ulka Seafoods

(P)Ltd Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd Universal Cold Storage Ltd Universal Cold Storage Private Limited# Upasana Exports Usha Seafoods V Marine Exports Vaibhav Sea Foods Varnita Cold Storage Veejay IMPEX Veraval Marines & Chemicals P Ltd Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd Vijayalaxmi Seafoods Vinner Marine Wellcome Fisheries Limited Winner Seafoods Wisdom Marine Exports Z A. Food Products Thailand: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-549-822 2/1/06-1/31/07 ACU Transport Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd. * Ampai Frozen Food Co., Ltd Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd Applied DB Ind AS Intermarine Foods Co., Ltd Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd. ***** Asian Seafoods Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd Asian Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) Company Limited A. Watanachai Frozen Products Co., Ltd Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd Bright Sea Co., Ltd ** C P Mdse C.Y. Frozen Food Co., Ltd Capital Food Trade Limited Chaiwarut Company Limited Chaivaree Marine Products Co., Ltd Chantaburi Seafood Co., Ltd. * Chanthaburi Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. * Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Co. Ltd Chonburi L C Chue Eie Mong Eak Core Seafood Processing Co., Ltd Crystal Frozen Foods Daedong (Thailand) Co. Ltd Daiei Taigen (Thailand) Co., Ltd Dynamic Intertransport Earth Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd Euro-Asian International Seafoods Co., Ltd Fait Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd Findus (Thailand) Co., Ltd Fishery Cold Storage Public Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd Good Fortune Cold Storage Company Limited Good Luck Product Co., Ltd Grobest Frozen Foods Co, Ltd H.A.M. International Co., Ltd Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd Heng Seafood Ltd. Part Heritrade HIC (Thailand) Co., Ltd High Way International Co., Ltd Instant Produce I.T. Foods Industries Co., Ltd International Pacific Marine Products Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd **** Inter-Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd Intersia Foods Co, Ltd K D Trdg KF Foods K.L. Cold Storage Co., Ltd Kiang Huat Sea Gull Trading Frozen Food Public Co., Ltd Kingfisher Holdings Ltd **** Klang Co., Ltd *** Kitchens of the Ocean (Thailand) Ltd Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd Kosamut Frozen Foods Co., Ltd Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd Leo Transports Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd Lucky Union Foods MKF Interfood Magnate & Syndicate Co., Ltd Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd Marine Gold Products Co., Ltd May Ao Co., Ltd May Ao Foods Co., Ltd Merkur Co., Ltd Ming Chao Ind Thailand N&N Foods Co., Ltd Namprik Maesri Narong Seafood Co., Ltd **** Nongmon SMJ Products N R Instant Produce Ongkorn Cold Storage Co., Ltd Pacific Queen Co., Ltd Pakfood Public Company Limited ***** Penta Impex Phattana Frozen Food Co., Ltd. * Phattana Seafood Co., Ltd. * Piti Seafoods Co., Ltd Premier Frozen Products Co., Ltd Preserved Foods Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd Rayong Coldstorage

(1987)Co., Ltd S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd S.C.C. Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd. * SCT Co., Ltd S Khonkaen Food Ind Public **** SMP Food Products Co., Ltd Samui Foods Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd **** Sea Wealth Frozen Food Co., Ltd Seafoods Enterprise Co., Ltd Seafresh Fisheries Seafresh Industry Public Co., Ltd Search & Serve Shianlin Bangkok Co., Ltd. *** Siam Canadian Foods Co., Ltd Siam Food Supply Co., Ltd Siam Intersea Co., Ltd Siam Marine Products Co., Ltd Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co., Ltd Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd Sky Fresh Smile Heart Foods Co. Ltd Songkla Canning Star Frozen Foods Co., Ltd STC Foodpak Co., Ltd Suntechthai Intertrdg Surapon Foods Public Co., Ltd Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd Surat Seafoods Co., Ltd Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd Suree Interfoods T.S.F. Seafood Co., Ltd Tanaya Intl Takzin Ssmut ***** Teppitak Seafood Tey Seng Cold Storage Co., Ltd Tep Kinsho Foods Thai-ger Marine Co., Ltd Thai Agri Foods Public Co., Ltd Thai Excel Foods Co., Ltd Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd Thai International Seafoods Co., Ltd. * Thai Mahachai Seafood Products Co., Ltd Thai Ocean Venture Thai Prawn Culture Center Co., Ltd Thai Royal Frozen Food Co. Ltd Thai Spring Fish Co., Ltd Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd Thai Union Mfg Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd Thai World Imports & Exports Thai Yoo Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd. * Thanaya Intl The Siam Union Frozen Food Co., Ltd **** The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd. ** Trang Seafood Products Public Co., Ltd Transamut Food Co., Ltd United Cold Storage Co., Ltd Wales & Co. Universe Ltd. * Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd Y2K Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. * Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd Note 1— In the 2004-2006 administrative review, the Department preliminarily found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Aquática Maricultura do Brasil Ltda. and Aquafeed do Brasil Ltda. If the Department makes a final determination that these companies comprise a single entity in the 2004-2006 administrative review, we will also treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review, absent information to the contrary. Note 2— In the original investigation, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Central de Industrializacao e Distribuicao de Alimentos Ltda. and Cia. Exportadora de Produtos do Mar (Produmar). (The company names “Central de Industria” and “Cida Central de Industria”, for which we also received requests for review, are variations of the name Central de Industrializacao e Distribuicao de Alimentos Ltda.) Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this Administrative review. Note 3— We received a request for an administrative review of both Compescal—Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda. and Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda. There is a letter on the record of the 2004-2006 administrative review stating that these companies are the same. Therefore, we are initiating the 2006-2007 administrative review with respect to Compescal—Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda. Note 4— In the original investigation, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Empresa de Armazenagem Frigorifica Ltda. and Maricultura Netuno S.A. (The company name “Empaf—Empresa de Armazenagem Frigorifica Ltda.”, for which we also received a request for review, is a variation of the name Empresa de Armazenagem Frigorifica Ltda.) Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. Note 5— We received requests for review of Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA, Marine Maricultura do Nordeste and Marine Maricultura Nordeste SA. In the 2004-2006 administrative review, we confirmed that Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA, Marine Maricultura do Nordeste and Marine Maricultura Nordeste SA are, in fact, the same company, and that the correct company name is Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA. Therefore, we are initiating the 2006-2007 administrative review with respect to Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA. Note 6— The petitioners and/or the LSA's requests for review included certain companies with identical names but different addresses. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as separate entities. Note 7— We received a request for an administrative review of both Potiguar Alimenbtos do Mar Ltda. and Potiguar Aliments do Mar Ltda. In the 2004-2006 administrative review, the petitioners withdrew the request for review of Potiguar Alimenbtos do Mar Ltda. because the spelling of the company name contained a typographical error. The correct spelling of the company name is Potiguar Alimentos do Mar Ltda. Therefore, we are initiating the 2006-2007 administrative review with respect to Potiguar Alimentos do Mar Ltda., not Potiguar Alimenbtos do Mar Ltda. ‸ The LSA's requests for review included certain companies with similar names. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as the same entity based on information obtained in the 2004-2006 administrative review. # In the 2004-2006 administrative review, the Department preliminarily found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited, Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Kader Exports Private Limited, Liberty Frozen Foods Private Limited, Liberty Oil Mills Limited, Premier Marine Products, and Universal Cold Storage Private Limited. If the Department makes a final determination that these companies comprise a single entity in the 2004-2006 administrative review, we will also treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review, absent information to the contrary. ## In the 2004-2006 administrative review, the Department preliminarily found that Coastal Corporation Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Coastal Trawlers Ltd. If the Department continues to make this finding in the final results of the 2004-2006 administrative review, we will rescind this review with respect to Coastal Trawlers Ltd. ### In the 2004-2006 administrative review, S B Agro (India) Ltd. informed the Department that it changed its name in January 2001 and it is now doing business as Sun-Bio Technology Limited. Therefore, in this review, the Department intends to request information from Sun-Bio Technology Limited. If we determine that S B Agro (India) Ltd. no longer exists, we will rescind the review with respect to this company name. #### In the 2004-2006 administrative review, Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. informed the Department that it is now doing business as Indepesca Overseas Pvt. Ltd. However, in the course of that review, petitioner withdrew its review request for Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the Department will only include Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. in this review (via its exports under the name Indepesca Overseas Pvt. Ltd.) if it determines that Indepesca Overseas Pvt. Ltd. is the successor in interest to this company. ##### The petitioner's and/or the LSA's requests for review included certain companies with identical names but different addresses. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as separate entities. ###### The petitioner's and/or the LSA's requests for review included certain companies with similar names. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as the same entity based on information obtained in the 2004-2006 administrative review. * In the original investigation, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd., Chantaburi Seafood Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., Phattana Seafood Co., Ltd., S.C.C. Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd., Thai International Seafoods Co., Ltd., Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd., Wales & Co. Universe Ltd., and Y2K Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. ** In the original investigation, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd. and Bright Sea Co., Ltd. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. ****The petitioner's and/or the LSA's requests for review included certain companies with identical names but different addresses. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as separate entities. **** The petitioner's and/or the LSA's requests for review included certain companies with identical names but different addresses. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as the same entity based on information obtained in the 2004-2006 administrative review. ***** In the first administrative review of this proceeding, the Department preliminarily found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Pakfood Public Company Limited, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd. and Takzin Samut Company Limited. If the Department makes a final determination that these companies comprise a single entity in the 2004-2006 administrative review, we will also treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review, absent information to the contrary. Incomplete Requests for Review We have not initiated administrative reviews with respect to the companies listed below which the Department was unable to locate in prior segments and for which no new information as to the party's location was provided by the requestor. Although the LSA requested that the Department reconsider this decision, we continue to find that it is inappropriate to initiate an administrative review of companies which we know that we cannot locate. Based on previous unsuccessful efforts by the Department to locate these companies, further efforts would be futile, absent new information as to their location. Brazil Aquamaris Aquaculture SA Camaros do Brasil Ltda. Camexim Captura Mec Exports Imports Campi Camaroa do Piaui Ltda. Juno Ind & Com de Pescados Ortico Produvale Produtos do Vale Ltda. Seafarm Criacao E Comericio de Produtos Aquaticos Ltda. SM Trading Industria E Comercio Ltda. Terracor Tdg Exp. E Imp. Ltda. Ecuador Brimon, S.A. India Adani Exportse Alfuzz Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. AMI Enterprises Baby Marine Sarass Bengal Marine Pvt. Ltd. Bluefin Enterprises Central Calcutta Cold Storage Exporter Coreline Exports Fernando Intercontinental Gadre Marine Exports Galaxy Maritech Exports P. Ltd. Indo Aquatics Lourde Exports Markoorlose Sea Foods Msngr Aqua Intl Noorani Exports Pvt. Ltd. Overseas Marine Export Premier Seafoods Exim

(P)Ltd. Razban Seafoods Ltd. Reddy & Reddy Importers & Exports Riviera Exports Pvt. Ltd. S & S Seafoods Safa Enterprises Santhi Fisheries & Exports Ltd. Shivaganga Marine Products Shroff Processed Food & Cold ZStorage P Ltd. Tim Tim Far East Export Trading Co.(P) Ltd V.S Exim Pvt Ltd. Thailand Assoc. Commercial Systems Daiho (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Frozen Marine Products Co., Ltd. Yong Siam Enterprise Co., Ltd. Selection of Respondents Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise because of the large number of such companies, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department to limit its examination to either:

(1)A sample of exporters, producers or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection; or

(202)482-0195 or

(202)482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 21, 2001, the Department published the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) for the period August 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Review and Determination Not To Revoke in Part* , 66 FR 15832 (“Final Results”) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memo”). The Department reviewed sales to the United States by Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (“Hylsa”) and Tubos de Aceros de Mexico, S.A. (“TAMSA”), both Mexican producers of OCTG. In the fourth administrative review, both TAMSA and Hylsa requested revocation from the order in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.222(e)(1). The Department declined to revoke the order in part with respect to TAMSA, as it determined that TAMSA “did not sell the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of the three years cited by TAMSA to support its request for revocation.” *See* Decision Memo at page 10. The Department declined to revoke the order in part with respect to Hylsa due to the finding of a dumping margin in the Final Results. Id. at 23. Subsequent to the completion of the fourth administrative review, both Hylsa and TAMSA challenged the Department's findings and requested that a Bi-National Panel review the final determination. A public hearing was held on July 20, 2005, in Washington, D.C., at which oral arguments were presented by the parties. The Panel issued a Decision of the Panel on January 27, 2006, upholding the Department's determinations with respect to TAMSA, but remanding the review to the Department with respect to Hylsa ( *i.e.* , to recalculate Hylsa's packing cost and cost of production (“COP”) on a product-specific basis). *See In the Matter of: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke* , USA-MEX-01-1904-05 (January 27, 2006) (“ *First Decision* ”). In accordance with the First Decision, the Department filed its remand results on April 27, 2006. Based on the instructions of the Panel, the Department recalculated Hylsa's packing and cost of production by product costs and calculated a new antidumping duty margin of zero for Hylsa. The Department then conducted a revocation analysis, but found that Hylsa did not ship in commercial quantities to the U.S. market during the time period under consideration and found that dumping by Hylsa in the ninth administrative review was relevant to the determination of whether the antidumping duty order was otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Based on these factors, the Department declined to revoke the order. *See* Redetermination on Remand, Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Fourth Administrative Review, April 27, 2006. On August 11, 2006, the Panel again remanded the decision to the Department for further consideration. *See In the Matter of: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke* , USA-MEX-01-1904-05 (August 11, 2006) (“ *Second Decision* ”). The Panel rejected the Department's reliance on the results of the ninth administrative review and also directed the Department to reexamine its revocation analysis “in light of the issues raised by the Panel.” Id. at 21. In accordance with the Second Decision, the Department reexamined Hylsa's request for revocation under 19 CFR § 351.222(e)(1) and determined that Hylsa had not made sales in commercial quantities for the three review periods under analysis. *See* Redetermination on Remand, Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Fourth Administrative Review, October 5, 2006 at 13-16. On January 16, 2007, the Panel affirmed the Department's second remand redetermination. *See In the Matter of: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke* , USA-MEX-01-1904-05 (January 16, 2007). The Panel issued its Notice of Final Panel Action on February 2, 2007. On March 14, 2007, the NAFTA Secretariat published a notice of completion of the panel review. *See North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel Reviews; Notice of Completion of Panel Review* , 72 FR 11847 (March 14, 2007). The Department also published a notice of the NAFTA decision not in harmony with the final results of the fourth administrative review. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Notice of NAFTA Panel Decision Not In Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review* , 72 FR 12761 (March 19, 2007). Amendment to Final Results We are now amending the final results of this administrative review to reflect the final decision of the Panel. The changes to our calculations with respect to Hylsa resulted in a change in the weighted-average margin from 0.79 percent to zero percent for the period of review. The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries of OCTG from Mexico produced by TAMSA and Hylsa at the assessment rates the Department calculated for these amended final results of review. Assessment The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 41 days after the date of publication of this decision. See section 356.8(a) of the Department's regulations. This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: April 2, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-6512 Filed 4-5-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Minority Business Development Agency White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders AGENCY: Minority Business Development Agency, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public teleconference meeting. SUMMARY: The President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (Commission) will convene a teleconference meeting on April 23, 2007 to deliberate the draft Commission report to the President. This meeting is open to the public and interested persons may listen to the teleconference by using the call-in number and pass code provided below (see ADDRESSES ). DATES: Monday, April 23, 2007, beginning at 3:15 p.m. (EDT). ADDRESSES: By telephone: Beginning at 3 p.m.

(EDT)on Monday, April 23, 2007, members of the public may call 1-888-791-2132 and dial pass code 6105564 to access the teleconference. Advance registration is not required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Commission, please contact Ms. Cianna Ferrer, Executive Assistant, Office of the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Minority Business Development Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 5612, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-3949; facsimile

(202)501-6239; e-mail: *info@aapi.gov.* Note that any correspondence sent by regular mail may be substantially delayed or suspended in delivery, since all regular mail sent to the Department of Commerce is subject to extensive security screening. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), public announcement is made of the Commission's intent to convene a teleconference meeting on April 23, 2007. This meeting is open to the public and interested persons may listen to the teleconference by using the call-in number and pass code set forth above (see ADDRESSES ). Advance registration is not required to access the teleconference. Prospective agenda items for the meeting include a deliberation of the draft Commission report to the President, administrative tasks and such other Commission business as may arise during the course of the meeting. In addition, the Commission welcomes interested persons to submit written comments to the Office of the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) at any time before or after the meeting. To facilitate distribution of written comments to Commission members prior to the meeting, the Commission suggests that comments be submitted by facsimile or by e-mail no later than April 19, 2007. The Commission will not be receiving public comment during the meeting. Dated: April 2, 2007. Ronald N. Langston, National Director, Minority Business Development Agency. [FR Doc. E7-6420 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-21-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket Number: 070309054-7055-01] NIST Center for Neutron Research

(NCNR)Neutron Research and Neutron Scattering, and Sample Environment Equipment Financial Assistance Programs; Availability of Funds AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)announces that the following programs are soliciting applications for financial assistance for FY 2007:

(1)NCNR Neutron Research and Neutron Scattering Financial Assistance Program, and

(2)the NCNR Sample Environment Equipment Financial Assistance Program. Each program will only consider applications that are within the scientific scope of the program as described in this notice and in the detailed program descriptions found in the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)announcement for these programs. DATES: Complete paper and electronic applications for each program must be received by 5 p.m. Daylight Savings Time on May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: For both programs, a complete application package may be obtained by contacting Tanya Burke, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Center for Neutron Research, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 6100, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6100. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about both programs and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity Notices

(FFO)at *http://www.grants.gov* . A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. The NCNR Neutron Research and Neutron Scattering Financial Assistance Program and the NCNR Sample Environment Equipment Financial Assistance Program will publish separate FFOs on *www.grants.gov* . For both programs, technical questions may be directed to Dr. Dan Neumann, NIST Center for Neutron Research, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 6102, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6102; telephone:

(301)975-5252; e-mail: *Dan.Neumann@nist.gov* . For both programs, grants administration questions should be addressed to Judy Murphy, NIST Grants and Agreements Management Division, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1650, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1650; telephone:

(301)975-5603; e-mail: *judy.murphy@nist.gov* . The NCNR Web site is: *http://www.ncnr.nist.gov.* For assistance with using Grants.gov, contact *support@grants.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number:* Measurement and Engineering Research and Standards—11.609. *Statutory Authority:* 15 U.S.C. 272(b)(7) and (c)(8, 10, 16, 17, 19). *Application Submission:* Paper Applications—Each applicant must submit one signed original and two paper copies of the complete application as described in the Federal Funding Opportunity to Tanya Burke, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Center for Neutron Research, STOP 6100, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-6100, telephone

(301)975-4711. Facsimile, electronic mail, and other forms of electronic application submissions, other than electronic applications submitted through Grants.gov, will not be accepted. *For electronic submission:* Applicants should follow the Application Instructions provided at Grants.gov when submitting a response to this funding opportunity. Applicants are encouraged to start early and not wait to the approaching due date before logging on and reviewing the instructions for submitting an application through Grants.gov. *Eligibility:* The NCNR Neutron Research and Neutron Scattering Financial Assistance Program and the NCNR Sample Environment Equipment Financial Assistance Program are open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; nonprofit organizations; commercial organizations; State, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* There is no cost sharing or matching requirements for these programs. NCNR Neutron Research and Neutron Scattering Financial Assistance Program *Program Description:* The primary program objectives of the financial assistance program in Neutron Research and Neutron Scattering are to develop new areas of neutron instrumentation with emphasis on cold neutrons; to explore and develop new areas of neutron scattering science, with emphasis on macromolecular science, condensed matter physics, and chemistry; to explore and develop new areas of neutron imaging or neutron physics; to assist and train NCNR facility users in their research; and to conduct other outreach and educational activities that advance the use of neutrons by U.S. university and industrial scientists. This will entail stationing scientific staff at the NCNR who, in collaboration with NIST and visiting scientists, advance these objectives. NIST does not require or anticipate full scope proposals, *i.e.* proposals need not address the fields of Neutron Research (which includes neutron imaging and neutron physics) and Neutron Spectroscopy (which includes neutron diffraction and neutron spectroscopy) at the same time. Proposals should instead be focused on one (or more) of the primary objectives listed above, *i.e.* the development of neutron instrumentation, new areas of neutron scattering science, new areas of neutron imaging, and/or new areas of neutron physics. Applicants and team members must possess the education, experience, and training, to pursue and advance the fields of Neutron Research or Neutron Scattering efficiently. In addition, the applicant and team members must possess a demonstrated record of excellence in the development of neutron instrumentation or in research involving neutron imaging, neutron physics, or neutron scattering methods. Additional information on the NCNR can be found at: *http://www.ncnr.nist.gov.* *Funding Availability:* The funding instrument used in this program will be a cooperative agreement. The nature of NIST's “substantial involvement” will generally be collaboration with the recipient(s) by working jointly with recipient scientists in carrying out the scope of work, or specifying direction or redirection of the scope of work due to inter-relationships with other programs requiring such cooperation. Proposals will be considered for cooperative agreements with durations of up to five years, subject to the availability of funds, satisfactory progress, and the continuing relevance to the objectives of the NIST Center for Neutron Research. The anticipated level of funding is up to $5,000,000 ($5 million) per year. One to five awards are likely. NIST will determine whether to fund one award for the full amount; to divide available funds into multiple awards of any size, and negotiate scopes of work and budgets as appropriate; or not to select any proposal for funding, upon completing the selection process described below. Awards are anticipated to contain a start date of September 3, 2007. *Review and Selection Process:* All applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated program objectives. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for record keeping purposes and destroy all other copies. Responsive proposals will be evaluated using the Evaluation Criteria for the NCNR Neutron Research and Neutron Scattering Financial Assistance Program described in this notice by an independent, objective panel composed of at least four individuals who are knowledgeable about neutron research, neutron spectroscopy, and neutron instrumentation. The reviewers will reach a consensus score resulting in a rank order of applicants. However, if non-Federal reviewers are used, each reviewer will evaluate and provide a score for each proposal without reaching a consensus. The NCNR Director, serving as the Selecting Official, will make the award selection. In making the award selection, the NCNR Director will take into consideration the panels' technical evaluation. The NCNR Director, as the Selecting Official, may choose a proposal out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors:

(1)Availability of funds,

(2)Redundancy,

(3)Balance/distribution of funds by research areas described in the Funding Opportunity Description section of this Notice,

(4)Program objectives described above in the Funding Opportunity Description section of this Notice, and

(5)Logistical concerns that would be detrimental to the success or timely completion of the proposal objectives. Therefore, the highest scoring proposals may not necessarily be selected for an award. If an award is made to an applicant that deviates from the scores of the reviewers, the NCNR Director shall justify the selection in writing based on selection factors described above. The NCNR Director may select all, none, or some of the applications for funding. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, whether the application furthers the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The award decision of the Grants Officer is final. Applicants should allow up to 90 days processing time. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Evaluation Criteria:* For the NCNR Neutron Research and Neutron Scattering Financial Assistance Program, the technical reviewers will use the following criteria to evaluate the proposals: 1. Qualifications and experience of the Principal Investigator in neutron research or neutron scattering as demonstrated by extensive publications and invited lectures in condensed matter physics, chemistry, material science, macromolecular science, neutron imaging, neutron physics, or related fields. (20%) 2. Qualifications and experience of the proposed university staff in neutron research or neutron scattering or in related scientific or engineering areas that are key to the activities contained in the proposal, as demonstrated by resumes of staff proposed for this program. (10%) 3. Quality of the proposed research and development plan and its potential impact on neutron research or neutron scattering, particularly in the areas of condensed matter physics, chemistry, material science, macromolecular science, neutron imaging, or neutron physics. (20%) 4. Quality of the plan in terms of providing research assistance to U.S. neutron researchers using the NCNR facilities, including related training, education, and outreach. (30%) 5. Quality of the plan to integrate university staff effectively into the activities of the NCNR facility, including establishing robust communications between the university and the NCNR. (15%) 6. Cost effectiveness of the plan, including the completeness of the estimate to achieve the objectives stated in the proposal. (5%) NCNR Sample Environment Equipment Financial Assistance Program *Program Description:* The primary objectives of this financial assistance program are to develop, design, and construct new, state-of-the-art equipment for dedicated use by the general scientific community on NCNR neutron beam stations that provide specific and well-controlled environments of scientific interest for in-situ studies of the microscopic properties of a broad range of sample materials such as molecular solids, thin films, biomolecules and biological membranes, solid state materials, polymers, and complex fluids, using neutron scattering and imaging techniques. Examples of sample environments include high (and/or pulsed) magnetic fields, high pressures, high (and/or pulsed) electric fields, variable humidity, high or low temperatures, variable shear, and various combinations thereof. A list of all the sample environment equipment at the NCNR that is currently available to the general user community is located at *http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/equipment/ancequip.html.* Applicants and team members must possess the education, experience, and training, to pursue and advance the field of Neutron Scattering efficiently. In addition, the applicant and team members must possess a demonstrated record of excellence in research involving neutron scattering methods. In some cases one or more scientific staff members may be stationed at the NCNR to work in collaboration with NIST and other visiting scientists to help advance these program objectives. Additional information on the NCNR can be found at: *http://www.ncnr.nist.gov.* *Funding Availability:* The funding instrument used in this program will be a cooperative agreement. The nature of NIST's “substantial involvement” will generally be collaboration with the recipient(s) by working jointly with recipient scientists in carrying out the scope of work, or specifying direction or redirection of the scope of work due to inter-relationships with other programs requiring such cooperation. Proposals will be considered for cooperative agreements with durations of up to three years, subject to the availability of funds, satisfactory progress, and the continuing relevance to the objectives of the NIST Center for Neutron Research. The anticipated level of funding is up to $150,000 per year. One to two awards are likely. NIST will determine whether to fund one award for the full amount; to divide available funds into multiple awards of any size, and negotiate scopes of work and budgets as appropriate; or not to select any proposal for funding, upon completing the selection process described below. Awards are anticipated to contain a start date of September 3, 2007. *Review and Selection Process:* All applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated program objectives. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for record keeping purposes and destroy all other copies. Responsive proposals will be evaluated using the above criteria by an independent, objective panel composed of at least four individuals who are knowledgeable about neutron research, neutron spectroscopy, and neutron instrumentation. The reviewers will reach a consensus score resulting in a rank order of applicants. However, if non-Federal reviewers are used, each reviewer will evaluate and provide a score for each proposal without reaching a consensus. The NCNR Director, serving as the Selecting Official, will make the award selection. In making the award selection, the NCNR Director will take into consideration the panels' technical evaluation. The NCNR Director, as the Selecting Official, may choose a proposal out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors:

(1)Availability of funds,

(2)Redundancy,

(3)Balance/distribution of funds by research areas described in the Funding Opportunity Description section of this Notice,

(4)Program objectives described above in the Funding Opportunity Description section of this Notice, and

(DUNS)number must be entered in the Applicant Identifier block (68 FR 38402). *Collaborations with NIST Employees:* All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed by an entity other than the applicant, and the cost of such work should ordinarily be included in the budget. If an applicant proposes collaboration with NIST, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention, a description of the collaboration, and prominently identify the NIST employee(s) involved, if known. Any collaboration by a NIST employee must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the approval of the proposed collaboration. Any unapproved collaboration will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review. *Use of NIST Intellectual Property:* If the applicant anticipates using any NIST-owned intellectual property to carry out the work proposed, the applicant should identify such intellectual property. This information will be used to ensure that no NIST employee involved in the development of the intellectual property will participate in the review process for that competition. In addition, if the applicant intends to use NIST-owned intellectual property, the applicant must comply with all statutes and regulations governing the licensing of Federal government patents and inventions, described at 35 U.S.C. sec. 200-212, 37 CFR part 401, 15 CFR 14.36, and in section B.20 of the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements, published on December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389). Questions about these requirements may be directed to the Counsel for NIST, 301-975-2803. Any use of NIST-owned intellectual property by a proposer is at the sole discretion of NIST and will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a project is deemed meritorious. The applicant should indicate within the statement of work whether it already has a license to use such intellectual property or whether it intends to seek one. If any inventions made in whole or in part by a NIST employee arise in the course of an award made pursuant to this notice, the United States government may retain its ownership rights in any such invention. Licensing or other disposition of NIST's rights in such inventions will be determined solely by NIST, and include the possibility of NIST putting the intellectual property into the public domain. *Collaborations Making Use of Federal Facilities and Equipment:* All applicants are encouraged to make full use of any NCNR facilities and equipment deemed necessary, subject to approval by appropriate NIST management. Such use is at the sole discretion of NIST. All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed using Federal facilities and equipment. If an applicant proposes use of NIST facilities and equipment, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention and a description of the facilities and equipment. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the availability of the facilities and equipment and approval of the proposed usage. Any unapproved facility and equipment use will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review. Examples of some facilities and equipment that may be available for collaborations are listed on the NIST Technology Services Web site, *http://patapsco.nist.gov/ts/220/external/facilities.htm.* *Initial Screening of all Applications:* All applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated objectives for each program. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* The standard forms in the application kit involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. *Research Projects Involving Human Subjects, Human Tissue, Data or Recordings Involving Human Subjects:* Any proposal that includes research involving human subjects, human tissue, data or recordings involving human subjects must meet the requirements of the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects, codified for the Department of Commerce at 15 CFR part 27. In addition, any proposal that includes research on these topics must be in compliance with any statutory requirements imposed upon the Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS)and other federal agencies regarding these topics, all regulatory policies and guidance adopted by DHHS, FDA, and other Federal agencies on these topics, and all Presidential statements of policy on these topics. NIST will accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by Institutional Review Boards

(IRBs)registered with DHHS and performed by entities possessing a current, valid Federal-wide Assurance

(FWA)from DHHS. NIST will not issue a single project assurance

(SPA)for any IRB reviewing any human subjects protocol proposed to NIST. On August 9, 2001, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement

(1)the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and

(2)the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being. NIST will follow guidance issued by the National Institutes of Health at *http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/stemcell.pdf* for funding such research. *Research Projects Involving Vertebrate Animals:* Any proposal that includes research involving vertebrate animals must be in compliance with the National Research Council's “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals,” which can be obtained from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20055. In addition, such proposals must meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 *et seq.* ), 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3, and if appropriate, 21 CFR part 58. These regulations do not apply to proposed research using pre-existing images of animals or to research plans that do not include live animals that are being cared for, euthanized, or used by the project participants to accomplish research goals, teaching, or testing. These regulations also do not apply to obtaining animal materials from commercial processors of animal products or to animal cell lines or tissues from tissue banks. *Limitation of Liability:* Funding for the programs listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of funds. In no event will the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige the agency to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. *Executive Order 12866:* This funding notice was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. *Executive Order 13132 (Federalism):* It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12372:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” *Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act:* Notice and comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553 (a)). Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* Dated: March 30, 2007. James E. Hill, Acting Deputy Director, NIST. [FR Doc. E7-6505 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. /807B] Endangered Species; File No. 1607 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Grants Pass Irrigation District (GPID), 200 Fruitvale Drive, Grants Pass, Oregon, has applied in due form for an incidental take permit for Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon for purposes of the continued operation and maintenance of Savage Rapids Dam. Unlisted covered species include Klamath Mountains Province

(KMP)steelhead ( *Oncorhynchus mykiss* ) and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coastal (SONCC) Chinook salmon ( *O. tshawytscha* ). DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Northwest Region, Oregon State Habitat Office, Habitat Conservation Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274; phone

(503)231-2202; fax

(503)231-6893; and Roseburg Field Office, NMFS, 2900 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, OR 97470, phone

(541)957-3385; fax

(541)957-3386 Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the above address. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at

(503)231-6893, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *Kenneth.Phippen@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 1607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Phippen, (541)957-3385. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). The Permit application is related to the continued operation and maintenance of Savage Rapids Dam in Josephine and Jackson Counties, in the State of Oregon. The dam is owned and operated by the GPID for the sole purpose of providing irrigation water to its customers. The GPID Habitat Conservation Plan

(HCP)utilizes a combination of conservation measures that are expected to minimize and mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, the impacts of take of ESA-listed coho salmon, and unlisted Chinook salmon and steelhead during irrigation operations in the period 2007-2009. A 1-year extension is considered in the assessments of this HCP. The HCP also requires GPID to take certain steps during the time the permit is effective to work to secure authorization and funding for dam removal and to install off-site electrical pumping stations along the Rogue River near Grants Pass, Oregon, by November 1, 2009, to provide for the long-term conservation of listed and unlisted covered species. The Bureau of Reclamation has awarded a contract for constructing the irrigation pumps and dismantling the dam. Pump construction was initiated in October 2006 and is expected to be completed along with dam dismantling prior to this ITP's expiration. To ensure that the mitigation and minimization strategies are effective, the HCP incorporates a variety of monitoring components, and if needed, adaptive management changes in the conservation measures set forth. It is expected that incidental take of the listed and unlisted species will occur from the normal operations and maintenance of the dam. Adult and juvenile SONC coho salmon from the Upper Rogue River population will be exposed to the SRD facilities that pose a physical threat to these individuals. Some adults from the Middle Rogue and Applegate rivers population may also venture above SRD or within the area downstream that is affected by the flow modifications of the dam. Adults must navigate the river and the altered flows from SRD in order to locate the fish ladders. The adults' upstream migration is likely to be delayed while flow conditions reach levels that allow the fish to navigate the fish ladders. Total mortality of juveniles caused by SRD is estimated to be 10 to 15 percent by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. This may be decreased by ongoing conservation measures, such as forebay lighting. However, this may be off-set by low-water years and a greater percentage of fish exposed to the turbines. Therefore, based on estimates of juvenile coho salmon population sizes and the effects described above, the annual injury and mortality of salmonid juveniles each year during the interim period is estimated to be between 1,400 and 2,500 fish. Total mortality of adult coho salmon is estimated to be between 200 and 1,200 fish annually. On an annual basis for the four years of potential operation (three years approved and one potential extension), fish salvage operations in the fall and spring will result in additional levels of harm for juvenile salmon and rarely for adults. In the fall there is potential for one adult coho salmon to be encountered during the shutdown operations of SRD. Both spring and fall situations will result in approximately 130 juvenile SONC coho salmon captured and released during the salvage operations. It is expected that up to 10 of these may die. Dated: March 30, 2007. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6412 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 031507B] Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; Seismic Surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; notice of public hearings. SUMMARY: NMFS and the Minerals Management Service

(MMS)announce the availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PEIS) for Seismic Surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska and the times, dates, and locations for public hearings in order to receive comments from the public on the Draft PEIS. DATES: Public hearings on the Draft PEIS are scheduled as follows: 1. April 10, 2007, 6:30 p.m. - 9 p.m., Anchorage, AK. 2. April 17, 2007, 7 p.m. - 10 p.m. Nuiqsuk, AK 3. April 18, 2007, 7 p.m. - 10 p.m. Barrow, AK 4. April 23, 2007, 7 p.m. - 10 p.m. Point Hope, AK 5. April 24, 2007, 7 p.m. - 10 p.m. Point Lay, AK 6. April 25, 2007, 7 p.m. - 10 p.m. Wainwright, AK Written comments will be accepted at these hearings as well as during the comment period. Written comments must be postmarked no later than May 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Draft PEIS should be addressed to Mr. P. Michael Payne, Chief of the Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *PR1.ALASKAEIS@noaa.gov* . Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the Draft PEIS may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact listed here and is also available at: *http://www.mms.gov/alaska/* . The public hearings will be held at the following locations: 1. 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Anchorage, AK 2. City Hall, Nuiqsut, AK 3. Inupiat Heritage Center, Barrow, AK 4. Qalgi Center (City Hall), Point Hope, AK 5. High School Gymnasium, Point Lay, AK 6. Robert James Community Center, Wainwright, AK FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Hollingshead,

(301)713-2289, ext 128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary On March 30, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** of the availability of the subject Draft PEIS for review and comments. NMFS and MMS will hold public hearings under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)to inform interested parties of the alternatives analyzed by NMFS and MMS and to accept comments on all aspects of the Draft PEIS. Background The NMFS and MMS have jointly prepared the subject Draft PEIS in order to fully describe and analyze the potential significant impacts on marine mammals, other Arctic marine life, and native subsistence lifestyles by reasonably foreseeable proposed offshore oil and gas seismic surveys off Alaska. This document also addresses a number of mitigation measures that have been identified as alternatives for potentially reducing impacts on identified affected environments, particularly marine mammals and the endangered bowhead whale. This PEIS will be used for issuing:

(1)permits for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic Ocean by MMS, and

(2)Incidental Harassment Authorizations

(IHAs)to the seismic industry by NMFS to take marine mammals incidental to oil and gas seismic surveys in the Arctic Ocean. As sounds generated by seismic survey operations and related activities have the potential to adversely impact marine mammals and other marine resources, IHAs would be warranted, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, in order to legally harass marine mammals (particularly bowhead whales), incidental to conducting seismic surveys. Summary of Draft PEIS Activity The Draft PEIS describes and analyzes the potential significant environmental impacts related to reasonably foreseeable proposed geophysical exploration using seismic surveys in waters of the Arctic Alaska Outer Continental Shelf. Specifically, the Draft PEIS assesses the environmental impacts of up to 6 consecutive surveys each in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas using deep-penetration 2D and 3D streamer and ocean bottom cable surveys, and high-resolution surveys and the issuance of IHAs to take marine mammals by these activities. As the sound generated by a seismic-survey operation and related activities has the potential to adversely impact marine mammals and other marine resources, IHAs would be warranted in order to incidentally harass marine mammals (particularly bowhead whales) while conducting seismic surveys. Impacts The best available scientific information indicates that marine seismic surveys may adversely impact archaeological sites, marine invertebrates, coastal and marine birds, essential fish habitat, marine fish, commercial fisheries, marine mammals, the sociocultural environment, and subsistence-harvest activities. Therefore, the analysis contained in the Draft PEIS focused on these resource categories. Of critical importance to NMFS for the proposed action of issuing IHAs are the impacts on marine mammals (particularly bowhead whales) and subsistence harvests from acoustic sounds. However, we expect these impacts can be mitigated through incorporation of specified mitigation measures. Alternatives/Mitigations NMFS/MMS have identified 9 alternatives, including the no action alternative. Analyzed alternatives range from issuance of MMS permits with and without mitigation measures. Specifically, the alternatives include different combinations of safety and exclusion zones for preventing injury (180/190 dB), limiting behavioral harassment (160 dB) and limiting impacts on feeding and migrating bowhead cow calf pairs (160 dB/120 dB, respectively). An identified alternative to protecting feeding and migration areas through specific temporal/spatial/operational restrictions to further reduce impacts to feeding/socializing/ migrating aggregations of bowhead and gray whales and bowhead cow/calf pairs has also been analyzed. At this time, MMS and NMFS have not identified a preferred alternative. Special Accommodations These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the person listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), at least five business days before the scheduled meeting date. Dated: March 27, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6414 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030607A] 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 of issuance of two incidental harassment authorizations. SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA)as amended, notification is hereby given that Incidental Harassment Authorizations

(IHAs)to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting seismic operations in the northwest portion of Cook Inlet, Alaska, have been issued to ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.

(CPAI)and Union Oil Company of California

(UOCC)for a period between mid-March and mid-June, 2007. DATES: The authorization for CPAI is effective from March 30 until May 31, 2007; and the authorization for UOCC is effective from May 1 until June 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, IHA, Environmental Assessment (EA), and/or a list of references used in this document may be obtained by writing 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 one of the contacts listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). 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

(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. A detailed description of these activities was published in the **Federal Register** on January 5, 2007 (72 FR 536). No change has been made to these proposed activities. 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. 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. The geographic region for the seismic operation proposed by CPAI encompasses a 25 mi 2 (65 km 2 ) 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, 151o02.198′W; 61°12.538′N, 150°49.979′W; and 61°05.443′N, 151o00.165′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. Comments and Responses A notice of receipt and request for 30-day public comment on the applications and proposed authorizations was published on January 5, 2007 (72 FR 536). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received the following comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the Whales and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), CPAI, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), and one private citizen. General Comments *Comment 1:* The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the IHAs subject to the following stipulations:

(1)The applicants be required to institute monitoring and mitigation measures sufficient to afford the potentially affected marine mammals species adequate protection from sources of disturbance, including disturbance of behavior;

(2)The period of observation be extended from 15 to 30 minutes before it is assumed that an animal has moved beyond the safety zone;

(3)Observations be carried out during all ramp-up procedures to gather data regarding the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measures; and

(4)Operations be suspended immediately if a dead or seriously injured marine mammals is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could be attributable to the applicants' activities. Any suspension should remain in place until NMFS has

(a)reviewed the situation and determined that further deaths or serious injuries are unlikely or

(b)issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. *Response:* NMFS agrees with the Commission's comments and recommendation that the applicants must institute monitoring and mitigation measures sufficient to afford the potentially affected marine mammal species adequate protection from sources of disturbance, including disturbance of behavior. As an additional measure of marine mammal monitoring, NMFS requires that CPAI conducting aerial monitoring of Cook Inlet beluga whales in the vicinity of the project area during seismic surveys between mid-March and mid-May (see Monitoring Section later in this document). The aerial surveys would determine the presence and relative numbers of belugas between east Susitna River and North Foreland and determine the location of belugas relative to seismic operations. No aerial monitoring is required for seismic operations by UOCC since the proposed project area and time would not have a relative high number of beluga whales. NMFS also agrees with the Commission that the duration of pre-operation monitoring be extended to 30 minutes to make sure that no marine mammals are in the safety zone before the initiation of airgun firing. As is standard under IHAs, observation would also be conducted during all ramp-up procedures to ensure the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure. NMFS further agrees with the Commission that seismic operations must be suspended immediately if a dead or seriously injured marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the project area and the death or injury of the animal could be attributable to the applicants' activities. This requirement is a conditions in the IHA. *Comment 2:* CPAI urges NMFS to proceed with the authorization as proposed in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 2007) and to require only the mitigation measures, monitoring and reporting procedures listed in the notice, including:

(1)limiting the time and frequency of the operations and the use of airguns;

(2)establishment of safety zones;

(3)vessel speed and course alteration;

(4)power-down procedures;

(5)shut down procedures;

(6)ramp-up procedures;

(7)use of qualified NMFS-approved vessel-based marine mammal observers (MMOs); and

(8)report of submission after the end of the project. *Response:* The **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536), published on January 5, 2007, provides a detailed description of the proposed seismic operations by CPAI and UOCC in upper Cook Inlet, the anticipated impacts to marine mammal species and/or stocks and their habitat within the project area, the potential effects on the subsistence harvest of these marine mammal species and/or stocks, and a list of proposed monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts that would result from the proposed actions. A thorough review by NMFS biologists of these projects, impacts, and monitoring and mitigation measures led NMFS to reach a preliminary determination the proposed projects, would result in no more than a negligible impact on such species or stocks, and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for subsistence uses, provided that all monitoring and mitigation measures are carried out. After careful consideration, NMFS decided to add an additional monitoring measure to require CPAI to also conduct aerial monitoring of Cook Inlet beluga whales within its project area off Beluga River in upper Cook Inlet to ensure beluga whales are not displaced from their normal habitat. Please refer to the Monitoring Section later in this document for a detailed description of CPAI′s aerial monitoring plan. In addition, CAPI and UOCC are required to conduct pre-survey monitoring of marine mammals for 30 minutes to ensure that the safety zone is free of marine mammals prior to initiating airgun firing, and that seismic operations must be suspended immediately if a dead or seriously injured marine mammals is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could be attributable to the applicants′ activities. All these requirements are conditions of the IHAs. MMPA Concerns *Comment 3:* CBD states that NMFS did not make the distinction between “small number” and “negligible impact” while making the decision in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 2007). *Response:* NMFS disagree. The analysis provided in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 2007) clearly described in detail the numbers of Cook Inlet beluga whales, Pacific harbor seals, and harbor porpoises that may be potentially taken by Level B harassment as a result of the seismic operations in upper Cook Inlet. Although no take number was estimated for Steller sea lions and killer whales within the project area due to their rare presence based on surveys conducted in recent years, NMFS believes that the harassment of these species would be much less likely than those of beluga whales and harbor seals. NMFS believes that the numbers for all affected species are small. NMFS conducts separate detailed analyses on the levels of take by noise exposure and cumulative impacts to these marine mammal species and stocks from a wide spectrum in the past, current, and foreseeable future were also conducted and described in the aforementioned **Federal Register** notice and in the EA. These analyses led NMFS to conclude that 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 would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. Please refer to the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 2007) and the EA for a detailed description of the analysis. *Comment 4:* CBD questions whether NMFS used the “best available science” in making its negligible impact statement. As CBD points out that in making its determination, NMFS must give the benefit of the doubt to the species rather than for the benefit of commercial exploitation. *Response:* NMFS disagree. 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. 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. To reach a determination whether such take constitute a negligible impact to the marine mammal species or stock(s), NMFS must use the best available scientific information. In reaching the determination for issuance of two IHAs for conducting seismic surveys in upper Cook Inlet, NMFS has consulted a number of scientific studies in this field and prepared an EA based on the most recent peer-reviewed information. Where information is unobtainable because of ethical concerns regarding conducting invasive and injurious effects on marine mammals, surrogate species or appropriate modeling is used in lieu of empirical information on marine mammals. This information are reviewed by the Commission and its Scientific Advisors, some of whom are experts on assessing impacts on marine mammals from underwater sound sources. The information contained in the EA has also been reviewed by endangered species biologists at NMFS Anchorage Field Office and expert in bioacoustics at NMFS Office of Protected Resources. Please refer to the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 2007) and the EA for a detailed description of NMFS analyses. As NMFS has used the best science currently available in making its negligible impact determination and because NMFS always gives the benefit of the doubt to the species when making these determinations, NMFS believes that no harm will occur to these affected species and/or stocks. *Comment 5:* The WDCS recommends that the IHA should not be issued and that seismic surveying should not be allowed to take place in the Cook Inlet. The WDCS further states that recent status review and extinction assessment reveals that Cook Inlet beluga whale population has not shown appreciable recovery since 1999, and should be listed under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)as an endangered species. The WDCS states that any added pressure to this population might push it beyond recovery. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. As stated here and in the EA, NMFS determined that the proposed short-term action that has several mitigation measures incorporated to reduce impacts to the lowest level practicable would result in no more than a negligible impact on Cook Inlet beluga whales (72 FR 536, January 5, 2007). The Cook Inlet beluga whale listing action under the ESA is a separate action, that is currently under NMFS review and consideration. *Comment 6:* CBD states that it does not believe NMFS can lawfully authorize any Level A harassment of Cook Inlet beluga whales. *Response:* As stated in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 2007), no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated or authorized for the proposed Cook Inlet seismic operations. *Comment 7:* CBD states that in light of the impending listing of the Cook Inlet beluga, NMFS should delay issuing any take authorization for the species until the ESA process is complete. *Response:* NMFS cannot legally delay issuing a take authorization based on the impending listing of a species. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of MMPA establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an IHA 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. An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds, that as here, the taking will have a no more than 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, such as the case of this action. NEPA Concerns *Comment 8:* The Commission is concerned about the potential impact of the proposed activities in conjunction with other factors that might be adversely affecting beluga whales (i.e., cumulative effects). The Commission states that such factors include increased vessel traffic, contaminants, military operations, waste management, urban runoff, and furthermore, a variety of new activities that are planned for Cook Inlet during the period for which the incidental taking authorizations are sought. *Response:* NMFS concurs with the Commission′s concern regarding the potential impact of the proposed activities in conjunction with other factors that might be adversely affecting the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock. NMFS also believes that extra caution is needed when proceed in authorizing any IHAs for Cook Inlet beluga whales, due to the precarious situation of this stock. Therefore, NMFS has conducted a detailed analysis on the cumulative impact on the environment which may result from the incremental impact of the proposed short-term seismic survey action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within upper Cook Inlet. The analyses are described in detail in the *Environmental Assessment on the Issuance of Incidental Harassment Authorizations to ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. and Union Oil Company of California to Take Marine Mammals by Harassment Incidental to Conducting Seismic Operations in Northwestern Cook Inlet, Alaska* . *Comment 9:* CBD states that for the analyses on CPAI and UOCC′s applications, NMFS must consider these effects together with all other activities that affect these species, stocks, and local populations, other anthropogenic risk factors such as other industrial development, climate change, and the cumulative effect of these activities over time. *Response:* NMFS has conducted extensive analyses on the cumulative impact to marine mammal species within the proposed action areas in the EA. Please also refer to *Response* to *Comment 8* . *Comment 10:* CBD states that NMFS cannot rationally adopt its EA and make a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). CBD states that NMFS must prepare a full environmental impact statement

(EIS)analyzing the effects of the proposed seismic surveys in the context of the cumulative effects of all other natural and anthropogenic impacts on the marine mammals, habitats and communities of Cook Inlet. *Response:* In December, 2006, NMFS prepared a draft EA for public comment and review. During the 30-day comment period, rigorous reviews were conducted by NMFS scientists in the NMFS Alaska Office and by members of the Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals of the Commission. In view of the information presented in this document and the analysis contained in the supporting draft EA prepared for this proposed action, and the best available scientific information on effects of sound on marine mammals, we have determined that the this action would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. In addition, monitoring and mitigation measures described in this document and in the supporting draft EA when implemented will reduce impacts on marine mammal stock to the lowest level practicable. Furthermore, additional aerial monitoring measure for Cook Inlet beluga whales is added to the requirements for seismic operations by CPAI near Beluga River (see Monitoring Section below), which was included in the Final EA. This additional aerial monitoring measure is contained in the IHA issued to CPAI. In addition, all beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed action have been addressed to reach the conclusion of no significant impacts. Accordingly, preparation of an EIS for this action is not warranted. Subsequently, NMFS finalized the draft EA and issued a FONSI on the proposed project. Levels and Numbers of Marine Mammals Affected *Comment 11:* CBD and one private citizen express their concerns that there is a threat of serious injury and mortality to the Cook Inlet beluga whales and other marine mammals from the proposed seismic surveys. *Response:* As described in detail in a **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536) published on January 5, 2007, and in the draft EA for the proposed action, NMFS has performed a thorough analysis on the levels of potential impacts to Cook Inlet beluga whales and four other species of marine mammals as a result of seismic operations in the upper Cook Inlet. Based on this analysis, which is supported by the best available scientific information, NMFS has come to the conclusion that only a few beluga whales, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, Steller sea lions, and killer whales 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. Therefore, NMFS believes that the authorized harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of mitigation measures described in the IHA, the EA, and in this document. 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 strict monitoring and mitigation requirements conditioned in the IHA. Please refer to the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 2007) and the EA for a detailed description of the analysis. *Comment 12:* The Commission states that the estimated taking of up to 57 beluga whales incidental to the two proposed projects can be characterized as a small number of animals for purposes of making the finding required under the MMPA. However, it represents more than one-quarter of the IUCN′s estimate of the number of mature animals in this population (Lowry *et al.* , 2006). Arguably, the Commission states that this level of anticipated taking could have more than a negligible impact on the survival and recovery of the stock. The Commission believes that caution is warranted. *Response:* NMFS agrees with the Commission that extra caution is needed when authorizing any incidental take permits of Cook Inlet beluga whales, due to the precarious situation of this stock. The IUCN stated that the population of Cook Inlet beluga whale is estimated at 207 mature individuals (Lowry *et al.* , 2006), however, there is no mention of any population surveys the IUCN conducted to reach this number. A Bayesian inference on the population size of Cook Inlet beluga (1994 2005) provided by the IUCN on its website ( *http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details/61442.pdf* ) showed that the population estimate of Cook Inlet beluga whales to be over 300 (range: approximately 290 400) whales, above NMFS' estimate of 278 whales, in 2005. In addition, the estimated potential take of up to 57 Cook Inlet beluga whales would include all individuals, and the potential take would be limited to only Level B behavioral harassment. Furthermore, with the implementation of monitoring and mitigation measures discussed in the EA and this document, NMFS believe the actual take by harassment would be much lower. Therefore, NMFS does not believe that the anticipated taking resulted from the proposed activities would have more than a negligible impact on the survival and recover of the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock. *Comment 13:* CBD is concerned that beluga′s foraging behavior and the large tidal fluctuations in Cook Inlet pose high risk of stranding at low tide even in the absence of anthropogenic disturbance. *Response:* Beluga whale stranding events in upper Cook Inlet are not uncommon. NMFS has reported 804 strandings (both individual and mass strandings) in upper Cook Inlet since 1988 (Vos and Shelden, 2005). Mass stranding events primarily occurred along Turnagain Arm, and often coincided with extreme tidal fluctuations (“spring tides”) and/or killer whale sighting reports (Shelden *et al.* , 2003). These mass stranding events involve both adult and juvenile beluga whales are are apparently healthy, robust animals. It is uncertain why beluga whales strand in Cook Inlet. Beluga whales are known to intentionally strand themselves during molting, while rubbing their skin against rocky bottoms (NMFS, 2005). Beluga whales may also strand purposely or accidentally to avoid predation by killer whales. Stranded whales, particularly large adults, are at risk of mortality due to stress, hyperthermia and suffocation. During two mass stranding events in 1996 and 1999 involving about 120 whales, 9 adult whales died (Moore *et al.* , 2000). In 2003, 115 beluga whales stranded during five events. Five mortalities occurred during one of these events when 46 animals stranded in Turnagain Arm (Vos and Shelden, 2005). However, NMFS has determined that implementation of mitigation measures described in this document, such as altering vessel direction, power-down or shut-down of airguns when whales are detected to be heading towards the safety zone, carrying out ramp-up procedure when startup airguns, and conducting seismic surveys only during slack tide periods, would prevent such stranding events from occurring. *Comment 14:* HSUS states that the information provided and the impact analysis for Cook Inlet belugas are not based on the most recent sources. HSUS states that the most recent status review issued by NMFS for Cook Inlet beluga (Hobbs *et al.* , 2006) updates, and dramatically expands on, information from the stock assessment. HSUS states that only the most recent information should be used when considering the status, distribution and effects on the stock. *Response:* NMFS agrees with the HSUS that the most recent information should be used when considering the status, distribution, and effects of the stock. NMFS has updated the EA for this action with new stock assessment data based on the most recent aerial surveys conducted by NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory in the 2006 season. The revised data updates the Cook Inlet beluga whale population at 302 whales (NMFS, unpublished data) from the previous 278 whales assessed in 2005. However, NMFS does not agree with the HSUS that the Status Review updates, and dramatically expands on, information from the stock assessment. As stated in its Executive Summary, the Status Review “provides a summary of the best available science to aid NMFS policy makers” in determining that the listing action may be warranted, and therefore is consistent with NMFS *Draft Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas)* (draft Conservation Plan, NMFS, 2005a). *Comment 15:* HSUS, citing Hobbs, states that the range of beluga whales has contracted considerably to focus during spring and summer around river mouths in upper Cook Inlet, in the general area where the seismic projects are proposed. HSUS states that the contracted smaller ranges are very important habitat to a vulnerable population. HSUS is concerned that the mitigation measures of ramping would displace beluga whales and force them to utilize suboptimal habitat. *Response:* In the Status Review (Hobbs *et al.* , 2006) the statement regarding the diminishing of the beluga whale′s ranges provides the following description: “In the 1970s and 1980s, beluga sightings occurred across much of the northern and central parts of Cook Inlet (Calkins 1984), but in the 1990s the summer distribution diminished to only the northernmost portion of Cook Inlet (Rugh *et al.* , 2000).” The Status Review and the draft Conservation Plan, as supported by NMFS long-term beluga whale surveys in Cook Inlet, showed that whales do not just congregate around any river mouth in upper Cook Inlet. The Status Review states that from late spring and throughout the summer months, the majority of beluga probably feed on fish species that are abundant in the Susitna River system and adjacent intertidal mudflats. The proposed project area for CPAI, as described in detail in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 2007), is paralleling the shoreline from just offshore of the Beluga River south for about 6 km, which is about 15 miles south of Susitna River mouth. This area is in the extreme southern edge of the area classified by NMFS as Type 2 habitat (high value, summer feeding area) in its draft Conservation Plan. Since the proposed CPAI seismic operations will be completed by May 15, NMFS does not believe that this project would have significant impact to beluga foraging activities. However to ensure that CPAI survey does not have a significant impact, NMFS is requiring CPAI to conduct an aerial monitoring program (see Monitoring Section). As for the proposed UOCC seismic project, which would occur further south in a latter period (from May 15 June 15) when the majority of Cook Inlet belugas will be feeding around the Susitna River, Knik Arm, and Tumagain Arm areas (Rugh *et al.* , 2000), no aerial monitoring is required. Therefore, it is not likely that the proposed seismic operations and the mitigation measures will displace beluga whales from their prime feeding ground or force them to utilize suboptimal habitat. Please refer to the draft Conservation Plan and the EA for a detailed description of beluga whales′ temporal and spatial distribution in Cook Inlet. *Comment 16:* HSUS is concerned that displacing animals for up to 8 hours each day (1 2 hours during each of 3 4 daily slack tides) for a period of months could have significant effects on foraging success and thus fitness of individuals in this declining population. HSUS notes that disturbance resulting in displacement by beluga whales does not appear to have been considered in the draft EA. HSUS also states that displacement even from a small area, if that area is important habitat, could have serious long term impacts on Cook Inlet beluga. In addition, citing Morton and Symonds (2002), HSUS states that killer whales and harbor porpoises have been displaced from important habitat by seal scrammers, a sound source similar to airguns. *Response:* NMFS disagree. Regarding the potential concern of displacing animals for up to 8 hours each day for the three-month period, since the survey vessel will be moving as it is conducting seismic surveys, NMFS does not believe that the whales will be displaced from a particular location during the entire period. The most likely scenario is that as the survey vessel conducts the surveys, marine mammals including beluga whales will be temporarily displaced from an approximately 370 m (1,214 ft) radius zone of influence (ZOI). As the vessel moves around, the ZOI will be shifting constantly. Therefore, no animal is expected to be displaced from an area for longer than 1 2 hours. NMFS considers temporary (rather than long-term) displacement of marine mammals as a form of behavior avoidance and is discussed in the draft EA (page 28). Please refer to the EA, Cook Inlet Beluga Conservation Plan, and *Response* to *Comment 15* for additional information on beluga whale habitat. Regarding Morton and Symonds's (2002), HSUS incorrectly stated that acoustic harassment devices

(AHDs)and airguns were similar in acoustic features. The sound produced by an AHD is intermittent but is considered non-pulse, based on differences in measurements between continuous and impulses sound level meters (Harris, 1998). In addition, the 10-kHz Airmar AHD mentioned in Morton and Symond′s

(2002)was designed specifically to cause physical pain to seals, and the nature of killer-whale hearing (similar to most odontocetes including belugas) makes this species vulnerable to impact by this type of sound source as well. As a result, NMFS believes that the AHD which was used from 1993 to 1999, is not be comparable to seismic airguns as proposed to be used during the three-month long seismic surveys proposed in Cook Inlet. *Comment 17:* Citing NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (SARs), HSUS points out that the Gulf of Alaska harbor seals should not be treated as a single stock. *Response:* Whether the Gulf of Alaska harbor seals should be reclassified into more finely scaled stocks remains under study. Until NMFS officially has adopted the revised stock reclassification based on available scientific information, NMFS will continue to use the existing stock information with the latest population abundance assessment for management purposes under the MMPA. In addition, even if the Cook Inlet harbor seals were to be reclassified as a separate stock, NMFS does not believe that the proposed seismic project would have significant impact to these animals due to the rare occurrence of the harbor seals within the project area. The most recent count for harbor seals within Cook Inlet is 7,330 seals (Josh London, National Marine Mammal Laboratory. Pers. Comm. February 2007). NMFS calculated that up to 30 Pacific harbor could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment as a result of the seismic projects. Therefore, the estimated take as a result of the proposed projects would represent 0.4 percent of the total seals in Cook Inlet. *Comment 18:* HSUS points out that the Gulf of Alaska harbor porpoise stock was recently revised from “not strategic” to “strategic” due to poor and/or outdated abundance estimates. *Response:* NMFS updated the information on Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor porpoise in the EA, based on the newly released draft Stock Assessment Report. The classification of the Gulf of Alaska harbor porpoises to a strategic stock is largely due to lack of information on incidental harbor porpoise mortality in commercial fisheries. The population estimate for this stock has been revised from 30,506 to 41,854 porpoises. Therefore, the percentage of estimated take of the Gulf of Alaska harbor porpoise by seismic surveys has been revised from 0.02 percent to 0.01 percent. *Comment 19:* HSUS is concerned that information on harbor porpoise densities in Cook Inlet was based on surveys done in 1991 1993, therefore, the abundance data would not be accurate. HSUS further states that harbor porpoises are not evenly distributed but “tend to clump in areas where forage conditions are more ideal, making them more vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts in some areas than others.” Citing Rugh (2005), HSUS states that there were high densities of harbor porpoises in two different areas in Cook Inlet. *Response:* NMFS acknowledges that the survey studies on population densities of Cook Inlet harbor porpoises cited (Dalheim *et al.* , 2002) were conducted 14 years ago, however, there is no evidence that these data are not accurate. A reference search did not show that there are any better or more recent studies available. Therefore, NMFS considers that Dalheim *et al.* 's

(2002)research on population densities of Cook Inlet harbor porpoises is the best scientific information available thus far. The statement “that harbor porpoises tend to clump in areas where forage conditions are more ideal, making them more vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts in some areas than others” is not totally relevant since the proposed seismic surveys do not necessarily seek areas where forage conditions are good for marine mammals. Even if the areas were the same, marine mammals clustered in groups would offer a better opportunity to see them and implement appropriate mitigation. NMFS assumes that the citation HSUS mentioned is Rugh *et al.* (2005), *NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-149: Aerial Surveys of Belugas in Cook Inlet, Alaska, June 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004* . In this paper, Rugh *et al.* stated that twice they located high density areas for harbor porpoises: south of Tuxedni Bay in 1994 and south of Chinitna Bay in 2004. Both areas are located in lower Cook Inlet, which are not the proposed project area. This statement supports NMFS assessment in its EA that harbor porpoises tend to concentrate in lower Cook Inlet. *Comment 20:* Citing NMFS' draft EA that there is no abundance estimate of Steller sea lions and killer whales in the proposed project area, HSUS and the AWI state that this does not preclude the occurrence of Steller sea lion within the project area and the analysis in the EA is inadequate. HSUS further questions NMFS regarding source references that Steller sea lions seldom occur in upper Cook Inlet besides data from aerial surveys conducted in June and July. *Response:* First, one should not interpret the statement in the draft EA that no population estimate has been made for Steller sea lions and killer whales within the proposed project area as that NMFS has no knowledge whether these species occur in the area or not. Repeated aerial surveys by NMFS for Cook Inlet beluga whales have recorded any sighting of other marine mammals including Steller sea lions and killer whales, however, no efforts were made to calculate the abundance of these species due to their rare occurrence in the project area (Rugh *et al.* , 2005). In fact, Rugh *et al.*

(2005)documented every sighting of marine mammals in their beluga whale aerial survey report. Although systematic surveys for beluga whales are usually conducted in June and July, field observations were made by biologists in NMFS Anchorage Office throughout the year on marine mammals within Cook Inlet. All these observations point out that Steller sea lions are rare in upper Cook Inlet (Brad Smith, NMFS Anchorage Office. Pers. Comm. February 2007). Acoustic Impacts *Comment 21:* CBD, the AWI and the WDCS question NMFS assumption that belugas would not be harassed by seismic sounds below 160 dB re: 1 microPa. CBD states that there are numerous studies showing significant behavioral impacts from received sounds well below 160 dB. For example, in its recent decision document related to seismic surveys associated with oil and gas exploration in the Chukchi Sea, NMFS imposed a 120-dB safety zone for aggregations of bowhead whales based on its finding that “bowhead whales apparently show some avoidance in areas of seismic sounds at levels lower than 120 dB” (MMS, 2006). Also harbor porpoises have been reported to avoid a broad range of sounds low-frequency (airgun pulses), mid-frequency (sonar transmissions), and high-frequency (acoustic harassment devices) at very low sound pressure levels (between 100 and 140 dB re: 1 microPa) (Kastelein *et al.* , 2000; Olesiuk *et al.* , 2002; Calambokidis *et al.* , 1998; NMFS, 2005b). AWI states that whales have stranded and died after being exposed to lower levels of sound, notably in the Bahamas incident of 2001. *Response:* NMFS does not agree. As stated in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 536, January 5, 2007) and the EA, one of the most important aspects to assess the effects of high intensity sounds on marine mammals is to understand their hearing sensitivity. For most small- and medium-sized odontocetes (beluga whales included), the most sensitive hearing ranges fall between 1 and 100 kHz (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). Although it has been reported that beluga whale's hearing extends to as low as 40 75 Hz (Awbrey *et al.* , 1988; Johnson *et al.* , 1989), its hearing threshold is at about 130 140 dB re: 1 microPa (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). The dominant frequencies (i.e., frequencies with highest sound pressure levels) of the airguns to be used in the proposed seismic operations are in the extreme low end of the spectrum (around 20 Hz). NMFS believes that at these low frequency ranges, the ability for belugas to detect sound is greatly reduced, therefore, belugas are not likely to be harassed. While bowhead whales may be affected by seismic sounds above 120 dB re: 1 microPa, they are mostly found within the Arctic, do not occur in Cook Inlet and therefore will not be affected. Other mysticete species are not expected in upper Cook Inlet. The harbor porpoise examples given in the comments were exposed to acoustic signals with much higher frequencies than the acoustic signals being produced by the proposed project (150 3,500 Hz). For example, the experiment conducted by Kastelein *et al.*

(2000)used three types of sounds, all had harmonics with high sound pressure levels above the range of 11 to 30 kHz. Gordon *et al.*

(1998)reported on experimental playbacks to harbor porpoises in inshore waters around Orkney, United Kingdom using a small source air gun (source level 228 dB re: 1 microPa zero-to-peak at 1 m) and observed no changes in the rate of acoustic detection as a result of sound exposure. In general, it is well known that harbor porpoises′ hearing sensitivity drops sharply as frequency goes under 8,000 Hz (Andersen, 1970; Kastelein *et al.* , 2002). In addition, it is also important to understand that whether a marine mammal would be harassed by sound or not also depends on the context of the animal's behavior and the acoustical property of the sound signal. It is also very possible that whales may not be harassed when exposed to sound at received levels higher than 160 dB re: 1 microPa (e.g., Madsen and Mohl, 2000; Harris *et al.* , 2001). Furthermore, as discussed in the EA, the upper Cook Inlet is one of the most industrialized and urbanized regions of Alaska. As such, ambient noise levels are high and range from 100 120 dB re: 1 microPa (Blackwell and Greene, Jr., 2002). Therefore, it is likely that marine mammals in this region are habituated to these anthropogenic sounds. NMFS does not concur with the AWI that there was a whale stranding event in the Bahamas in 2001 caused by exposure to sound levels under 160 dB re: 1 microPa, as mentioned in its comment (no reference provided). There was a mass stranding event in the Bahamas on March 15 16, 2000, which is possibly linked to naval exercises in the area (Cox *et al.* , 2006). Although no received levels and mechanism that caused the stranding were determined, it was revealed that four of five ships were using mid-frequency sonar (AN/SQS-53C: 2.6 3.3 kHz, approximately 235 dB re: 1 microPa SPL, AN/SQS-56: 6.8, 7.5, and 8.2 kHz, approximately 223 dB re: 1 microPa SPL; Anon, 2001). These sounds are very different from the seismic pulses in terms of frequencies, amplitudes, and temporal patterns. *Comment 22:* Citing a recently issued IHA by NMFS to the National Science Foundation for conducting seismic surveys, CBD is concerned that beluga whales could be displaced at a significant distance (up to 20 km, or 12.4 mi) from a sound source. *Response:* NMFS notes that there have been observations that small toothed whales sometimes move away, or maintain a somewhat greater distance from the seismic vessel, when a large array of airguns is operating than when it is silent (e.g., Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003). Aerial surveys during seismic operations in the southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded much lower sighting rates of beluga whales within 10 20 km (16 - 32 mi) of an active seismic vessel. These results were consistent with the low number of beluga sightings reported by observers aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting that some belugas might be avoiding the seismic operations at distances of 10-20 km (Miller *et al.* , 2005). However, as noted in the **Federal Register** notice referenced by the CBD (71 FR 43450, August 1, 2006), NMFS does not consider minor movements away from an acoustic source to rise to Level B harassment, since at the range of 7,097 and 10,646 m (4.4-6.6 mi; depending on ocean depths), received levels dropped down to below 160 dB re: 1 microPa. *Comment 23:* The WDCS states the possibility that up to 57 Cook Inlet beluga whales (up to 20 percent of the population) could be subjected to 180-dB received level is unacceptable. Given the most recent research survey, providing a population abundance estimate of only 278 animals, it would be unacceptable for even one animal to be subjected to the received levels proposed during the seismic surveys. *Response:* NMFS does not think the WDCS statement is accurate. Based on NMFS' calculation, as discussed in the draft EA, no Cook Inlet beluga whales would be subjected to noise levels equal to or greater than 180 dB re: 1 microPa

(rms)from the proposed seismic surveys. Based on NMFS' acoustic criteria, 180 dB re: 1 microPa

(rms)is considered to be the onset of TTS and exposure of cetaceans to this level of noise will not be permitted under these IHAs. Strict mitigation and monitoring measures described in the EA and required under these IHAs will prevent any cetaceans from exposure to 180 dB re: 1 microPa

(rms)or greater. NMFS states that up to 57 beluga whales (representing 19 percent of the population based on the most recent survey data) could be exposed to noise levels of 160 dB re: 1 microPa (rms), which is the onset of Level B behavioral harassment, as a result of the seismic operations. *Comment 24:* CBD questions NMFS' Level A harassment criteria of 180 dB re: 1 microPa for cetacean and 190 dB re: 1 microPa for pinniped species. CBD cites that in 2002, 2 Cuvier's beaked whales ( *Ziphius cavirostris* ) were found to have stranded in the Gulf of California, Mexico, coincident with geophysical surveys that were being conducted in the area (Hildebrand, 2004), and in the same year, humpback whales ( *Megaptera novaeangliae* ) were reported to have stranded in unusually high numbers along Brazil's Abrolhos Banks, where oil-and-gas surveys were being conducted (Engel *et al.* , 2004). In addition, CBD states that the western Pacific gray whales were displaced from feeding grounds and exhibited behavioral changes in response to seismic surveys off Russia′s Sakhalin Island (Wursig *et al.* , 1999). CBD also states that no studies undertaken on the acoustic sensitivity of pinnipeds suggests these species are at lower risk of threshold shift or auditory injury than cetaceans (Kastak *et al.* , 1999; 2005), and that harbor seals have exhibited low discomfort thresholds to anthropogenic noise (Kastelein *et al.* , 2006). *Response:* In 1998, scientists convened at the High Energy Seismic Sound

(HESS)Workshop, reviewed the available scientific information, and agreed on the received sound levels above which marine mammals might incur permanent tissue damage resulting in a permanent threshold shift

(PTS)of hearing. Shortly thereafter, a NMFS panel of bioacousticians used the information gathered at the HESS workshop to establish the current Level A Harassment acoustic criteria for non-explosive sounds, 180 dB re: 1 microPa-m

(rms)for cetaceans, and 190 dB re: 1 microPa-m

(rms)for pinnipeds, exposed to impulsive sounds. In the absence of good sound scientific information for specific species, NMFS conservatively adopt these criteria to establish safety zones, within which monitoring or mitigation measures must be applied, for all cetacean and pinniped species. A study by Finneran *et al.*

(2002)on bottlenose dolphin ( *Tursiops truncatus* ) and beluga whale using a behavioral response paradigm and exposing them to intense impulses from a seismic watergun showed that masking temporary threshold shifts

(MTTS)occurred after being exposed to an impulsive sound of 160 kPa, or 226 dB re: 1 microPa p-p, with total energy fluxes of 186 dB re: 1 microPa2-s for the beluga whale. No MTTS was observed in the dolphin at the highest exposure conditions: 207 kPa, 228 dB re: 1 microPa p-p, and 188 dB re: 1 microPa2-s total energy flux. As for these two stranding examples cited in the comment (Hildebrand, 2004; Engel *et al.* , 2004) that occurred in the vicinity where there had been seismic surveys conducted using powerful airguns, a causation relationship between seismic surveys and strandings has yet to be scientifically established. These references did not state that seismic surveys are the cause of the strandings. Please see NMFS more detailed response to these two events in the previous notice (69 FR 74906, December 16, 2004). NMFS notes that no measurements were made on the distance between the acoustic source and the marine mammals. The report by Wursig *et al.* (1999), which is also cited in the comment, provided a detailed study of behavioral ecology of western Pacific gray whale summering off Sakhalin Island. The report did not suggest that the species were displaced from important feeding ground. On the contrary, a follow up final report (Wursig *et al.* , 2000) on the same subject stated that “whales did not appear to be displaced by industrial activity.” No comparable studies have been conducted on pinnipeds regarding their responses to impulsive sounds. The two references (Kastak *et al.* , 1999; 2005) cited in the comment cannot be used to address the noise responses of pinnipeds for the proposed project because animals in these studies were exposed to octave-band noises for extended durations (20 22 minutes in Kastka *et al.* , 1999; 20, 25, and 50 minutes in Kastka *et al.* , 2005). In the third reference (Kastelein *et al.* , 2006) cited in the comment, harbor seals were also exposed to octave-band noise, nonetheless, no TTS was observed. All these studies underscore the importance of including sound exposure metrics (incorporating sound pressure level and exposure duration) in order to fully assess the effects of noise on marine mammal hearing, not just looking at the absolute sound pressure levels. *Comment 25:* HSUS uses an example that workers in loud factories become habituated to noise in order to make money to feed their families, but that does not insulate them from the multiplicity of effects of stress or chronic sub-lethal conditions that may go undetected by external monitoring, therefore, the habituation to high level acoustic disturbance cannot be dismissed. *Response:* NMFS does not believe that the HSUS′ example of workers working in noisy factories is a good analogue to marine mammals living in a noisy environment due to the different contexts. In addition, such comparison cannot be performed as HSUS did not provide quantitative data on the noise levels of the “loud factories” that are presumed to cause stress or chronic sub-lethal condition. The marine environment is an efficient medium for sound propagation and the ambient noise, as shown in many studies, are much higher underwater than in air, although quantitative comparison is often impossible due to different reference point in acoustic pressures selected. Many of the sounds (e.g., those from marine life, wind, surf, waves, rain, bubbles, ice, earthquakes, and thunder/lightning) underwater occur naturally and are considered an intrinsic property of the environment (Wenz, 1962; Diachok and Winokur, 1974; Arnold *et al.* , 1984; Wilson *et al.* , 1984; Nystuen and Farmer, 1987; Richardson *et al.* , 1995; Tkalich and Chan, 2002; Ma *et al.* , 2005). Therefore, marine mammal hearing sensitivities may not reflect those of terrestrial animals. Furthermore, the proposed seismic surveys would occur in a short period of three months and are not confined in one fixed spot, while the factory workers in HSUS′ example are presumed to be working in the same noisy environment for a number of years. *Comment 26:* HSUS states that when describing the characteristics of seismic sound, NMFS did not cite the most recent literature except Richardson *et al.* (1995), *Marine Mammal and Noise (Academic Press)* , which HSUS considers to be outdated. HSUS brings NMFS attention to a recent paper by Madsen *et al.*

(2006)indicating that seismic airguns generate significant sound energy at frequencies well above those of interest to the surveyors. Citing Madsen *et al.* (2006), HSUS states that received levels of up to 147 dB re: 1 microPa rms were generated for higher frequencies, which may cause avoidance, stress, and masking to marine mammals. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. NMFS does not consider Richardson *et al.* 's

(1995)work as outdated. To the contrary, it is still one of the most authoritative and widely cited literatures on characteristics of seismic sound and airguns. In fact, Richardson *et al.*

(1995)has noted that low frequency airgun pulses contain energy in much higher frequencies, which was also cited in our draft EA. NMFS is aware of Madsen *et al.* 's work and considers it an important contribution to our understanding of seismic sounds propagation in deep water. In addition, NMFS does not believe that received levels from inpulse noise (sound as seismic) of up to 147 dB re: 1 microPa rms would cause a biologically significant response by marine mammal species and stocks in Cook Inlet (see *Response* to *Comment 21* ). However, in recognition of the potential of horizontal propagation of sound energy at higher frequencies, NMFS requires that safety zones based on 180 dB and 190 dB re: 1 microPa rms isopleths around the survey vessel be established for cetacean and pinniped species, respectively at the distance of greatest propagation. Please refer to the EA and **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 2007) for detailed information. *Comment 27:* HSUS states that NMFS did not consider some of the more recent work examining the impacts of seismic airguns on marine mammals. HSUS brings NMFS attention to the proceedings from a workshop on this issue by the International Whaling Commission

(IWC)Scientific Committee's Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns. In addition, HSUS states that very outdated sources (primarily from the 1990s) of empirical work on the impact of seismic airguns on marine mammals were cited in the draft EA. Responses: NMFS is aware of the proceeding by the 2006 IWC Scientific Committee's Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns and has reviewed all its session papers on impacts of seismic surveys on cetaceans. These papers and the proceeding were not considered in the EA because none of the session papers were peer-reviewed, and many are summaries of original studies that were already included in the EA. Nonetheless, a few of the new studies presented at the IWC did provide information on long-range effects of airgun noise on marine mammals. For example, field monitoring of seismic surveys by U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS)in Juan de Fuca Strait, Georgia Strait, Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and other marine waters in British Columbia and Washington showed that most marine mammals exhibited avoidance and Level B behavioral change when exposed at 170 183 dB re: 1 microPa rms but were not affected when levels were below 170 dB, except for harbor porpoises (Bain and Williams, 2006). Although the authors stated that there were insufficient numbers of individuals of marine mammals observed to merit statistical analysis, the general observations support NMFS 160-dB criteria for the onset of Level B behavioral harassment. As regards to the sources used in the draft EA, NMFS does not considered them outdated. All references NMFS used are peer-reviewed and are cited in peer-reviewed papers. All these papers were tested in time and thus NMFS considers them to be the best available scientific information. A quick tally showed that among the 21 references cited on noise impacts on marine mammals, 3 (14 percent) were published in the 1980s, 8 (38 percent) in the 1990s, and 10 (48 percent) in the 2000s. *Comment 28:* HSUS states that the fact that cetaceans are near vessels during airgun firing, even riding the bows of vessels towing arrays is more a reflection of the characteristics of airgun sound propagation than an indication that airgun pulses do not affect cetaceans. HSUS states that there may well be sound shadows closer to the vessel and the animals may be attracted to the vessels in an effort to escape exposure to the blast. *Response:* The Lloyd-mirror effect phenomenon, where acoustic energy is diminished in a sound field near the surface where engine and propeller noise from a ship is blocked by the vessel's hull, has been a discussion regarding ship strike of large whales (Terhune and Verboom, 1999; Blue *et al.* , 2001). However, it is highly unlikely that the received levels would be reduced to the degree from the source (airgun array) with no blockage between the source and the receivers. Nonetheless, the IHAs require the surveyors to shut down the airgun as soon as a marine mammal is sighted or believed to be inside the safety zones, and no airgun can be started until 30 minutes after all marine mammals have vacated the safety zones. *Comment 29:* HSUS states that beluga whales react to low frequency sounds from icebreaker ships, probably at the level at which they are just able to detect them, up to 40 km away (Finley *et al.* , 1990; Cosens and Dueck, 1993). HSUS questions NMFS' assumption that beluga whales do not react to low frequency sounds. *Response:* NMFS does not agree with HSUS′ extrapolation of beluga reactions to approaching icebreaker ship sounds to predict their responses to low-frequency seismic surveys. First, the acoustic characteristics of an icebreaker do not resemble those from a seismic airgun array. While seismic airguns produce transient sounds (pulses), the noise from a ship is continuous sounds (non-pulses) (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). In addition, HSUS incorrectly classified sounds from icebreaker ships as “low-frequency.” In fact, mid-point frequencies of intense sound levels (over 162 dB re: 1 microPa) from icebreaker ships recorded ranged from 50.1 Hz 5.01 kHz (Cosens and Dueck, 1993). In a more recent study, the statistical source spectrum levels in 12th octave bands between 100 Hz and 20 kHz from the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker *Henry Larse* n, were calculated at a median source level of 192 dB re: 1 microPa @ 1 m from bubbler system noise and 197 dB re: 1 microPa @ 1 m for noise associated with propeller cavitation along this entire frequency range (Erbe and Farmer, 2000). Therefore, their effects of noises from icebreaking ships and seismic airguns to marine mammals cannot be compared. Furthermore, the contexts of the acoustic signals and the prior exposure of anthropogenic sounds by the whales need also to be taken into consideration when interpreting animal responses. As suggested in both publications cited by HSUS (Finley *et al.* , 1990; Cosens and Dueck, 1993), the beluga whale reactions to icebreaker noise at unprecedented ranges in the remote Canada High Arctic was probably due to the fact that these animals are relatively naive with respect to exposure to industrial noise. Richardson *et al.*

(1995)also suggested that the acute responsiveness to icebreakers was probably caused by the partial confinement of whales by heavy ice, scarcity of ships in the high arctic in spring, and ideal sound propagation conditions (LGL and Greeneridge, 1986). *Comment 30:* HSUS states that there is an overemphasis on avoidance behavior and hearing loss when discussing the potential impacts of the seismic surveys on marine mammals in Cook Inlet in NMFS' draft EA. Citing the IWC *Report of the Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns* (2006), HSUS states that “Clark and his colleagues...suggest strongly that masking may be a significant problem for animals exposed to seismic airguns,” but it was not mentioned in the draft EA. *Response:* NMFS considers that long-term displacement and hearing loss as a result of anthropogenic sounds are biologically significant impacts to marine mammals, as discussed in detail in the draft EA. Therefore, NMFS considers it better to overemphasize and to call extra attention to the reviewers and the public regarding the danger of these impacts, than to have these issues overlooked. However, NMFS does not believe beluga whale or other marine mammal acoustic communications would be masked as a result from the seismic surveys. For the most part, the low-frequency and intermittent seismic pulses, the high-frequency communication calls of five species of marine mammals in Cook Inlet, and the broadband echolocation signals from three cetacean species do not overlap in either frequency or temporal domain. And the non-sequential, high-frequency nature of cetacean communication signals (whistles and pulsed calls) can be easily transmitted in between the brief seismic pulses. The IWC report (IWC, 2006) did not state or even suggest that masking is a potential problem for marine mammals exposed to seismic sounds. In fact, the only places “masking” is mentioned in that report is when discussing noises from pile-driving, windfarms, and high ambient noise environments. Clark and Gagnon (2006), in their session paper presented at the 2006 IWC meeting, do not suggest that masking is a problem for marine mammals exposed to seismic sounds. In fact, “masking” or “mask” was not mentioned in their paper (Clark and Gagnon, 2006). This particular paper does state that highly sequential and patterned low-frequency, narrowband mysticete songs often coincide with the same acoustic features of seismic sounds. The paper also provided examples showing acoustic maps for the 20 22 Hz frequency band, where analyses indicate that fin whales would stop singing when a seismic survey was operating but would resume singing within hours to days after the survey stopped. NMFS does not think this would be the case in Cook Inlet since there are no mysticeti species present. *Comment 31:* The AWI and HSUS are concerned about seismic sound on fish species and state that several recent studies demonstrating hearing loss and widespread behavioral disruption in commercial species of fish (Engas *et al.* , 1996; Popper *et al.* , 2003). HSUS further states that the discussion of sound effects on fish seemed brief and sketchy. HSUS suggests that the draft EA expands its discussion of the impacts of seismic on other marine life. HSUS also points that some studies cited in the draft EA suggest very strongly that marine mammal prey might be negatively impacted by seismic surveys, either because they are significantly displaced (e.g., Slotte *et al.* , 2004) or because they are physically injured (e.g., McCauley *et al.* , 2003). *Response:* The purpose of the EA is to evaluate environmental impacts of issuing the two IHAs for incidental taking of marine mammals by harassment will:

(1)have a negligible impact on the marine mammal species or stocks; and

(2)not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses. However, throughout the EA, NMFS provided a basic analysis on potential seismic surveys impacts on marine environment, including fish species. The analysis indicates that it is highly unlikely the marine environment, including other marine species, would be significantly impacted as a result of the proposed seismic surveys. Therefore, a more in depth discussion on the effects of seismic surveys on other marine life is beyond the scope of the EA. The research conducted by Slotte *et al.*

(2004)during the seismic investigations off the Norwegian west coast, as cited in HSUS′ comment, did not find that pelagic fish (herring, blue whiting and mesopelagic species) were displaced. This particular research recorded the acoustic abundance of fish during the seismic surveys, and compared it with data recorded directly prior to and after shooting along the seismic transects. The comparison showed that although lower acoustic abundance of fish was recorded during the shooting, there was not a difference in fish abundance prior to and after shooting within the seismic area. The authors state that these results indicate “that the shooting had insignificant short-term scaring effects.” In addition, the authors state that “both blue whiting and mesopelagic species were found in deeper waters in periods with shooting compared to periods without shooting, indicating that vertical movement rather than horizontal movement could be a short-term reaction to this noise.” The word “displacement” or “displace” did not appear in the paper. The experiments by McCauley *et al.* (2003), as cited in the comment, were conducted by carrying out trials where pink snapper (Pagrus auratus) were held in cages and were exposed to signals from an airgun towed toward and away from the cages. The airgun, which has a source level of 222.6 dB re: 1 microPa p-p (or 203.6 dB re: 1 microPa rms) at 1 m, was towed from start up at 400 - 800 m (1,312 - 2,615 ft) away to 5 - 15 m (16 - 49 ft) at closest approach to the cage. The study showed that the ears of fish exposed to an operating air-gun sustained extensive damage to their sensory epithelia that was apparent as ablated hair cells. However, the authors cautioned that several caveats must be considered when interpreting these results. Foremost of these caveats was that the fish studied were caged and could not swim away from the sound source. Video monitoring of behavior suggested that the fish would have fled the sound source if possible. It is also likely that many fish species hearing the approaching air-gun would swim away, as has been observed on a large scale by Engas *et al.* (1996). *Comment 32:* HSUS states that NMFS' draft EA overemphasizes TTS and serious injury, as well as behavioral harassment, but ignores the potential for increased stress, displacement to sub-optimal habitat (even if only temporarily), and masking. The AWI, WDCS, and HSUS state that the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate and will not necessarily protect the marine mammals in the project area. *Response:* NMFS believes that the proposed mitigation measures will protect marine mammals from Level A harassment and TTS (Level B harassment), as described in detail in the EA. These are standard mitigation measures widely used for seismic operations and are statutorily required in many countries (JNCC, 2004; Weir *et al.* , 2006; Wilson *et al.* , 2006). Regarding the comments on potential increased stress, displacement to sub-optimal habitat, and masking of marine mammals, please refer to *Responses* to *Comments 25* , *15* , and *30* , respectively. *Comment 33:* HSUS states that the TTS data used in the draft EA are primarily based on studies conducted on captive animals that have been habituated to research protocols and a noisy environment (San Diego Harbor). These TTS values have never been validated on free-ranging naive animals, which at best might be more sensitive behaviorally than captive animals and at worst might also be more susceptible to hearing damage at lower received levels. *Response:* It is true that three of the six studies on marine mammal TTS cited in the draft EA were based on research conducted on animals in San Diego Bay, however, recent studies on the same animals, which was also cited in the EA, indicated that masking noise did not have a substantial effect on the onset-TTS levels observed (Finneran *et al.* , 2005). These data represent the best scientific information available to date. In addition, those TTS data were not used by NMFS as criteria for onset of TTS. The criterion used by NMFS for onset-TTS is 180 dB re: 1 microPa for cetaceans, which is much lower than levels reported in these studies. Regarding the validation of TTS values on free-ranging naive animals, as noted in the HSUS comments, NMFS is not aware of any such studies being conducted or other data existing, either within or outside the United States. *Comment 34:* AWI states that anthropogenic noise does not just affect hearing organs, and that the hearing range of the Cook Inlet belugas has not been assessed. AWI further states that presumably the data used is from a few captive individuals, likely habituated to noise over a length of time. *Response:* NMFS agrees that anthropogenic noise does not just affect hearing organs of marine mammals. For a detailed discussion on the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals, please refer to the EA. Hearing sensitivity of beluga whales is well documented (White *et al.* , 1978; Awbrey *et al.* , 1988; Johnson *et al.* , 1989), and multiple studies on beluga whales′ behavioral audiograms from different researchers largely agree with each other. Therefore, in view of the scientific methods, there is no reason to believe that Cook Inlet beluga whales would have significantly different hearing range than the same species from different areas. In addition, habituation to noise does not affect animal′s hearing sensitivity, especially in the experimental setting, where animals are rewarded to “hear better.” Monitoring and Mitigation *Comment 35:* CBD questions whether NMFS has taken the “means effecting the least practicable impact” on marine mammals when implementing mitigation measures. CBD argues that the mitigation requirement that the taking have the “least practicable impact” on the species requires NMFS to consider a larger safety zone. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. It may seem that a large safety zone would be a more conservative mitigation measure to ensure that marine mammals are not exposed to intense seismic sound pressure levels. However, a larger safety zone often presents more challenges in monitoring, and would compromise the effectiveness of spotting marine mammals within or approaching the safety zones. In addition, as mentioned in *Response* to *Comment 22* , and discussed in detail in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536, January 5, 2007) and in the EA, carefully modeled and empirically field-verified safety zones based on isopleths of 180 dB re: 1 microPa for cetaceans and 190 dB re: 1 microPa for pinnipeds are one of the most conservative mitigation measures which allows the least practicable impact on the species for this proposed action. *Comment 36:* CBD states that the proposed requirements related to monitoring of the safety zone for the proposed actions do not meet the MMPA′s standards because, for example, there is no requirement for passive acoustic monitoring (PAM). The WDCS also recommends that PAM be undertaken to enable an additional opportunity to detect marine mammals in the survey area. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. The MMPA has not established standards for monitoring requirements. The monitoring requirements proposed are to ensure 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. Monitoring measures are also used to reduce the level of takes to the lowest level practicable due to implementation of the mitigation measures. Monitoring measures for different project are proposed in a case-by-case basis, and there is no “one size fits all” type of monitoring procedures. For the proposed seismic projects in upper Cook Inlet, the radius of the safety zone (370 m, or 1,214 ft) based on the 180 db re: 1 microPa isopleths is too small to allow accurate and effective acoustic monitoring. As the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC, 2004) stated that in practice the exclusion zone (safety zone) need be more than 500 m (1,640 ft) to allow for accurate passive acoustic monitoring (PAM). JNCC also noted that in many cases PAM is not as accurate as visual observation when determining range. NMFS believes that in the subject seismic survey projects, where safety zone is sufficient small, passive acoustic monitoring is not warranted. The presence of additional vessels for deploying PAM would only introduce more noise to the small area where the proposed projects are to occur. However, as an additional monitoring measure, NMFS requires CPAI to conduct aerial monitoring for its seismic surveys off Beluga River in upper Cook Inlet. A detailed aerial monitoring plan is provided in the Monitoring Section of this document. *Comment 37:* The WDCS recommends that at least three marine mammal observers

(MMOs)should be available so that two visual observers are on watch at all times during the survey. The Commission expresses its concern that operations at night or under foggy condition may not provide sufficient measure to protect marine mammals. The WDCS recommends that no operations should take place at night or in sea conditions above a sea state 2, where the likelihood of detection of elusive and cryptic cetacean species, in particular beaked whales, *Kogia* , harbor porpoises, and beluga whales dramatically decreases. *Response:* NMFS agrees with the WDCS recommendation that at least two MMOs should be available for visual monitoring at all times during the survey, in addition, aerial monitoring will be required for all seismic survey during day-light hours off Beluga River. NMFS does not agree with the WDCS that seismic surveys need to be shut down at night or in sea conditions above Beaufort sea state 2, as the safety zone is small enough (370 m, or 1,214 ft, radius for 180 db re: 1 microPa) and that the action area can be sufficiently monitored with night-vision devices (NVDs), even at Beaufort sea state 2. The comment regarding prohibiting seismic surveys at night is not practicable due to cost consideration and ship time schedule. If the vessel is prohibited from operating during nighttime, the survey would have to be extended for much longer period of time and would not be beneficial to the marine mammal species in the area. In addition, ramp-up prior to initiation of seismic surveys will provide sufficient warning to marine mammals in the project vicinity to temporarily vacate the project area for 1 2 hours. Therefore, NMFS does not believe that monitoring would be compromised as a result of low-light and high waves. No beaked whales and Kogia spp. are expected to occur in Cook Inlet. *Comment 38:* The Commission recommends that NMFS provide an assessment of the likelihood of detecting marine mammals at or below the surface within zones of potential impacts, particularly under less than optimal conditions, prior to concluding that these measures will be effective in ensuring that marine mammals are not exposed to potentially harmful sound levels. *Response:* NMFS believes that monitoring measures described in the EA, in addition to aerial surveys monitoring, would detect all marine mammals at or below the surface within zones of potential impacts. Vessel-based monitoring procedures are standard measures that are commonly used during seismic surveys. Especially for the proposed activities, the safety zone is small enough due to the low-intensity airgun array, visual monitoring from the survey vessel by two MMOs is believed to be adequate. Though such monitoring does not guarantee that there would be no marine mammals within the zones of influence during a survey, NMFS also requires the ramp-up procedure before initiation of airgun firing. *Comment 39:* The AWI is concerned that ramp-up procedure has been found to attract inquisitive animals to a noise source (no reference provided). *Response:* NMFS is not aware of any instances that an inquisitive marine mammal has been attracted to a noise source during ramp-up of a seismic survey. In any case, the IHAs will require that surveyors shut down the airgun as soon as a marine mammal is sighted or believed to be inside the safety zones. An inquisitive marine mammal moving to the ship due to its inquisitive nature to the sound source will be easily spotted before it enters the safety zone. *Comment 40:* HSUS states that the safety zone is inadequate to prevent or minimize stress, displacement, and masking. *Response:* Regarding the establishment and effectiveness of the safety zone, please referred to *Response* to *Comment 21* ; regarding potential stress, displacement, and masking, please refer to *Responses* to *Comments 15, 16, 21, 22, 24, and 25* . Please also refer to the EA for a thorough analysis of the mitigation and monitoring measures for the proposed projects. Other - ESA Listing, Subsistence Harvest, and Paper Reduction Act *Comment 41:* CBD believes that the threats facing Cook Inlet beluga are of sufficient magnitude and immediacy that NMFS should proceed with an emergency listing provided by Section 4(b)(7) of the ESA and designate the proposed seismic survey area in upper Cook Inlet as critical habitat. The WDCS recommends that whilst NMFS has categorized habitat according to its value and sensitivity, all habitats that the Cook Inlet beluga whales use should be considered critical. *Response:* As detailed in **Federal Register** notice (65 FR 34590, May 31, 2000), NMFS stated that the MMPA and ESA establish a specific regulatory process for limiting subsistence harvest, and neither statute includes emergency provisions to eliminate portions of the process. Since recent subsistence harvest is considered to be the major link directly to the decline of Cook Inlet beluga whales (NMFS, 2005a), therefore, other emergency polices, strategies, or actions would not likely promote recovery. Critical habitat designations must be based on the best scientific information available, in an open public process, within specific time-frames. Before designating critical habitat, careful consideration must be given to the economic impacts, impacts on national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary of Commerce may exclude an area from critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless excluding the area will result in the extinction of the species concerned. For additional information regarding Cook Inlet beluga whale conservation, please refer to NMFS' (2005a) *Draft Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas)* . *Comment 42:* AWI states that the proposed project area is home to endangered Steller sea lions and the Cook Inlet beluga whales that are currently being considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS)for listing under the ESA. *Response:* As stated in the EA, Steller sea lion occurrence is rare in Cook Inlet and its appearance during the project period is unlikely. The Cook Inlet beluga whales are currently being considered by NMFS, not the FWS as mentioned in the comment, for listing under the ESA. *Comment 43:* CBD observes that given the very low subsistence take of Cook Inlet belugas authorized in recent years, the injury or mortality of even a single beluga by Conoco/Union Oil's activities could very well have the effect of precluding any subsistence harvest in a given year. *Response:* The subsistence take of Cook Inlet belugas by the Alaskan natives is currently managed under an interim harvest management plan developed by the Alaska native organizations and NMFS (69 FR 17973, April 6, 2004) and is not directly related to the proposed action. The proposed action does not authorize any takes by Level A harassment (injury) or death of any marine mammals within the proposed project area in upper Cook Inlet, nor is such takes anticipated. *Comment 44:* The CRE notes that they have not been successful in identifying the Paperwork Reduction Act authorizations that would allow NMFS to collect any seismic permit information. *Response:* Applications and reporting requirements for small take authorizations under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 101(A)(5)(D) of the MMPA have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0648-0151. Description of Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity Marine mammal species potentially occurring within the proposed action area include 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 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* . A more detailed description of these species and stocks within Cook Inlet is provided in the January 5, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 536). Therefore, it is not repeated here. 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 vessel 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 of time. 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 302 whales (NMFS, unpublished data) 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 2.0 - 18.9 percent (average 8.6 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 18.9 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 km 2 . 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 required under the IHAs that were 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 will be limited from early March to mid-June in portions of northwestern Cook Inlet. During the seismic operations, airguns will 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 Alaska Department of Fish and Game restrictions. Establishment of Safety Zones The applicants will 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-in 3 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 will 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 stocks in question. An independent marine acoustic firm, will be used to acquire the data. A 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 will 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 so 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 30 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 are 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 Vessel-based Monitoring Vessel based monitoring will be conducted by at least two qualified NMFS-approved 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 30 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. Observations will also be conducted during all ramp-up procedures to ensure the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure. 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. Aerial Monitoring In addition to vessel monitoring, seismic surveys that will be conducted off the Beluga River between mid-March and mid-May by CPAI will also be required to conduct aerial monitoring. The aerial surveys will:

(1)determine the presence and relative numbers of beluga whales between the west side of the Susitna River and North Foreland,

(2)determine the location of belugas relative to seismic operations, and

(3)record other marine mammals observed during the seismic surveys. The aerial monitoring area will be centered on the project area plus a buffer (from Susitna River to North Foreland) for detecting belugas before or after they pass through the project area. The boundary for the aerial survey extends approximately 7 mi (11 km) south of the project area to the North Foreland, approximately 7 mi (11 km) north to the Susitna River, West Fork, and 0.25 mi (0.4 km) from shore. The size of the survey area provides a design for observing whales before and during exposure to seismic sounds. Aerial monitoring will be conducted from a single engine helicopter, which will fly a single transect line paralleling the shoreline along the coast in the project area. The survey will begin from the north and finish by returning to the Beluga Gas Field, which will be the base of helicopter operations. This pattern will be flown unless observation conditions (glare, etc) require flying from south to north depending on the effect of glare on observations. The helicopter will fly at 1,500 ft (457 m), due to glide path needs, and at a ground speed of 60 knot (111 km/h). This altitude should prevent disturbance of marine mammals and birds by the helicopter noise. Helicopter monitoring will be conducted at a frequency that reflects the monthly abundance of belugas in the project area (LGL, 2006). The helicopter will be flown once per week in March when few if any whales are expected in the project area. However, should belugas be observed (by helicopter or boat), helicopter will be flown daily until whales are not observed for two consecutive days. Once belugas are no longer observed for two consecutive days, helicopter will be flown once per week in March. Aerial monitoring will be increased to twice a week through mid-April, until such time as belugas are observed, when helicopter will be flown daily until whales are not observed for two consecutive days. After mid-April, aerial monitoring will be conducted daily when the number of belugas transiting through the project area to the upper Cook Inlet is anticipated to be higher. Aerial monitoring will fly 1 - 2 transects shortly before and half (0.50) of a transect during seismic operations, which corresponds to the 3 - 4, 1-2 hour slack tides each day. Half transects are flown during seismic operations to prevent noise interference on the surveys. Half transect flight direction will be determined by the relative position of activities to the helicopter landing location. Aerial monitoring will alternate over various tidal cycles when ever possible, since beluga distribution may vary during the tidal cycles (LGL, 2006). To the extent consistent with applicable aviation regulation, aerial surveys will be conducted under the following conditions:

(1)when the pilot considers it safe to do so;

(2)during daylight hours; and

(3)during good viewing conditions (ceiling height above 1,500 ft (457 M) and Beaufort Sea States below 4. Flights will also be oriented to minimize sun glare on the observer. One NMFS-approved MMO will be on the helicopter observing and recording marine mammals, covering the 180o view in front of the helicopter. Space will be made available on the helicopter for NMFS staff to participate in surveys at least twice a month. Data from aerial monitoring will be recorded on the species, number, group size, location (latitude/longitude), time, date, direction of travel, angle from helicopter as determined by using a clinometer, ceiling height, Beaufort Sea State, glare, weather, tide, real time positions (latitude/longitude) of seismic survey vessel, shooting, and vessel activities. Marine mammal behavior data will be recorded when possible. Observation conditions will be recorded at the start and finish of each survey or whenever conditions change. All information collected during the marine mammal survey and/or reported to the vessel will be recorded on a field form. Land-based Monitoring Land-based monitoring will be conducted by the MMO during days when no aerial monitoring is practicable. Monitoring will be conducted at Ladd Landing, a site previously used for land-based observations (LGL, 2006). The MMO will use binoculars to regularly scan the area visible from the land site for marine mammals. Data recorded will include sighting, weather, sea state, glare, amount of viewable area visible, and seismic operation information. Sighting data will include species, number, group size, direction of travel, date, time, and distance from shore. Reporting Reports from aerial and land-based monitoring will be faxed or e-mailed to NMFS Anchorage Field Office on a daily basis. 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)In January 2007, NMFS prepared a draft EA on the issuance of IHAs to CPAI and UOCC to take marine mammals by harassment incidental to conducting seismic operations in upper Cook Inlet, Alaska. The draft EA was released for public review and comment along with the applications and the proposed IHAs. During the 30-day public comment period NMFS received comments from the HSUS, CBD, WDCS, and AWI on the draft EA. All comments are addressed in full in the Comments and Responses section. Subsequently, NMFS finalized the draft EA and on March 30, 2007, issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on the proposed project. 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 affected 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 section 7 consultation is not necessary. Determinations NMFS has determined 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 that Steller sea lions and killer whales, if present within the vicinity of the proposed activities could be taken incidentally, 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. Although there is no estimated take numbers for Steller sea lions or killer whales available due to their rare occurrence within the project areas. 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. Authorization NMFS has issued 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 has issued 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: March 30, 2007. Angela Somma, Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6488 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 040307A] Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Surfclam/Ocean Quahog and Tilefish Committee and Tilefish Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 26, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 2 Harmon Plaza, Secaucus, NJ; telephone:

(201)348-6900. *Council address* : Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904, telephone:

(302)674-2331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; telephone:

(302)674-2331, extension 19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to review progress regarding Amendment 1 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). It is expected that preferred management measures will be discussed and identified when possible. Amendment 1 to the Tilefish FMP addresses:

(1)Possible implementation of an Individual Fishing Quota

(IFQ)management system for tilefish [initial IFQ allocation, IFQ transferability of ownership, IFQ share accumulation, fees and cost recovery, establish flexibility to revise/adjust IFQ program, establish IFQ reporting requirements, other];

(2)Possible implementation of recreational bag-size limit;

(3)Possible implementation of recreational permits and reporting requirements;

(4)Potential improvements for monitoring of tilefish commercial landings;

(5)Potential revisions to current tilefish reporting requirements (Interactive Voice Response);

(6)Possible expansion of and revision to the list of management measures that can be adjusted via the framework adjustment process;

(7)Potential revisions to essential fish habitat

(EFH)designation;

(8)Potential revisions to habitat areas of particular concern

(HAPC)designation;

(9)Consideration of possible measures to reduce gear impacts on EFH; and,

(10)other issues to be considered in Amendment 1. 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 identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Committee's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Bryan at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office,

(302)674-2331 extension 18, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: April 3, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6428 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. /707A] Annual National Marine Fisheries Service/State Marine Fisheries Directors Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of open public meetings. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of an annual meeting of the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)and the State Marine Fisheries Directors. This annual meeting provides the opportunity for State and Federal fishery managers to discuss fishery management areas of concern. The meeting will be hosted by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission(PSMFC). All sessions will be open to the public. DATES: The meeting will be held on May 1 - May 3, 2007. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for dates, times, and agenda. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hotel Del Coronado, 1500 Orange Avenue, Coronado, CA 92118,

(800)HOTELDEL. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Moore, Chief, Partnerships and Communications Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS; telephone:

(301)713-2379 x165. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As required by section 10(a)

(2)of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, notice is hereby given of this meeting. This annual meeting provides the opportunity for State Marine Fisheries Directors and Federal fishery managers to discuss fishery management areas of concern. Tuesday, May 1, 2007 *8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.* - Opening remarks and introductions will be presented by Dr. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, and by Mr. Randy Fisher, Executive Director of PSMFC. *8:30 a.m. to 10 a.m.* - Presentations by the three Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions; overview of state activities, and Gulf States experience with natural disasters. *10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.* - Implementation of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act

(MSA)will be presented; recreational fisheries registry and recreational fisheries data Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey (MRFSS) and National Research Council (NRC). *1 p.m. to 3 p.m.* - Discussion on recreational data issues (continued). *3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m* . - Implementation of MSA will be presented; annual catch limits/accountability measures. *4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.* - Science concerns and stock assessments will be discussed. *4:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.* - NOAA Fisheries Budget will be discussed. Wednesday, May 2, 2007 *8 a.m. to 9 a.m.* - Implementation of MSA will be presented; National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). *9 a.m. to 10 a.m.* - Enforcement updates and vessel monitoring system

(VMS)will be presented. *10:30 a.m. to 11 a.m.* - Specific management issues will be discussed; circle hooks, etc. *11 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.* - National Outreach Plan will be presented. *1 p.m. to 2 p.m.* - National Fish Habitat Plan will be presented. *2 p.m. to 3 p.m.* - Aquaculture Legislation update will be presented. *3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.* - State Directors will discuss areas of concern: grants, etc. Thursday, May 3, 2007 *8 a.m. to 10 a.m.* - State Directors discussion of areas of concern (continue). *10 a.m. to 11 a.m.* - Wrap-up meeting. The above agenda items may not be taken in the order in which they appear and are subject to change as necessary to allow for full discussion. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Chris Moore, Chief, Partnerships and Communications Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS; telephone:

(301)713-2379 ext: 165, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: April 2, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6399 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. /607C] Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comment. SUMMARY: Limit 10(i) of the June 28, 2005, Endangered Species Act

(ESA)provides that road maintenance programs that comply with a program substantially similar to that contained in the Oregon Department of Transportation

(ODOT)Guide that is determined to meet or exceed the protections provided by the ODOT Guide can be excepted from the prohibitions provided in earlier sections of that rule. The Five Counties Salmon Conservation Program's (5 C) “A Water Quality and Stream Habitat Protection Manual for County Road Maintenance in Northwestern California Watersheds” (Manual), is a comprehensive road maintenance program for Humboldt, Del Norte, Siskiyou, Trinity, and Mendocino Counties (5 C area). If the Manual is qualified under Limit 10(i), each of the five counties would adopt the Manual as its road maintenance program. To facilitate NMFS review of the Manual under Limit 10(i), 5 C prepared a submittal package that addresses each of the approval criterion in the 4(d) rule. The Manual would affect two Evolutionarily Significant Units

(ESUs)of threatened salmon and two Distinct Population Segments

(DPSs)of threatened steelhead identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. The Manual specifies the future management practices for routine road maintenance activities within the 5 C area. This notice serves to inform the public of the availability of the Manual and submittal package for review and comment. DATES: Written comments on the Manual and submittal package must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES ) no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Savings Time on May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Garwin Yip, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521. Comments may also be sent via fax to

(707)825-4840 or e-mail at *5C4DRule.SWR@noaa.gov* . Comments will not be accepted if submitted via the Internet. Copies of the Manual and submittal package are available on the Internet at *http://www.5counties.org* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garwin Yip at phone number:

(707)825-5166, or e-mail: *garwin.yip@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is relevant to the salmonid ESUs and DPSs listed as threatened in the 5 C area and covered by the June 2005 4(d) Rule. These ESUs and DPSs include the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon ESU, California Coastal Chinook salmon ESU, Northern California steelhead DPS, and Central California Coast steelhead DPS. Background On June 28, 2005, NMFS adopted a rule under section 4(d) of the ESA of 1973, as amended prohibiting the “take” of 20 groups of salmon and steelhead listed as threatened under the ESA the 4(d) Rule. That rule also describes limits on the extension of the definition of take to certain state and local programs in 13 specific categories, including Routine Road Maintenance (Limit 10). Limit 10(i) provides that routine road maintenance activities conducted by employees or agents of a state, county, city, or port that complies with a program substantially similar to that contained in the ODOT Guide that is determined to meet or exceed the protections provided by the ODOT Guide are eligible for the limitation on the definition of “take” of threatened species as to those road maintenance activities. Each of the 5 counties of Humboldt, Del Norte, Siskiyou, Trinity, and Mendocino will adopt the Manual to obtain coverage under Limit 10(i) of the 4(d) Rule, should NMFS find the Manual is consistent with Limit 10(i). For NMFS to approve the Manual under Limit 10(i), it must find that the Manual meets or exceeds the protections provided by the ODOT Guide. To facilitate the approval of the Manual, the 5 C prepared the submittal package that includes a comparison, where applicable, of each category of maintenance practices and how they are equal to or exceeds the protections provided by the ODOT Guide. In March 2007, the 5 C submitted the submittal package and Manual to NMFS for approval under the 4(d) rule. Within the Manual, Chapter 1 explains watershed basics, stream habitat needs, and road treatment principles. Chapter 2 explains the regulatory process in establishing the necessary permits in order to implement any of the routine road maintenance activities. Chapters 3 through 9 provide the Best Management Practices

(BMPs)for routine road maintenance activities, and includes a description of the activity, any environmental concerns, permits that may be required, and useful references. The Manual also consists of specific road maintenance activities, staff training, implementation and effectiveness monitoring, adaptive management, emergency response measures, and reporting requirements. For each road maintenance activity, the Manual provides BMPs designed to achieve desired conservation outcomes. Only activities that fall under the definition of “maintenance” are include in the Manual. Repair and maintenance include activities that are conducted on currently serviceable structures, facilities, and equipment which involve no expansion of or change in use of such structures, facilities, and equipment beyond those which existed previously, and do not result in significant negative hydrological impact. The road maintenance project categories covered by the Manual include maintaining roads (e.g., grading, road surfacing, dust abatement, vegetation management, and winterizing the road system), maintaining culverts (e.g., culvert cleaning, improvement, repair, sizing, and replacement; ditch relief culverts, and temporary stream diversions), disposal of spoils, managing maintenance yards (e.g., facility housekeeping practices, building and grounds maintenance, vehicle and equipment maintenance, and material use and storage), maintaining bridges (e.g., bridge maintenance, repair, and drift removal), working with an emergency (e.g., emergency maintenance, slide and settlement repair, and accident clean-up), and dealing with snow and ice (snow and ice removal, de-icing/anti-icing and sanding). As specified in 50 CFR 223.203(b)(10)(i), the prohibitions of 50 CFR 223.203(a) relating to certain threatened species do not apply to routine road maintenance activities provided that NMFS finds that the program meets or exceeds the protections provided by the ODOT Guide. Authority Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is required to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (June 28, 2005; 70 FR 37160) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities. The rule further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph

(a)of the rule do not apply to activity associated with routine road maintenance, provided that any state or local program comports with the standard described above and has been approved by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (June 28, 2005; 70 FR 37160). Dated: March 30, 2007. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6413 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 040207B] Endangered Species; File No. 1547-01 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit modification. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Kathryn Hattala, Principal Investigator), 21 South Putt Corners Road; New Paltz, New York 12561, has been issued a modification to scientific research Permit Number 1547. ADDRESSES: The permit modification and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone

(301)713-2289; fax

(301)427-2521; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone

(978)281-9328; fax

(978)281-9394. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Malcolm Mohead or Brandy Hutnak,

(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 23, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** that a modification of Permit Number 1547, issued October 27, 2006, (71 FR 65470), had been requested by the above named organization. The requested permit modification has been granted under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). In order to evaluate seasonal movement of shortnose sturgeon ( *Acipenser brevirostrum* ) in Haverstraw and Newburgh Bays of the Hudson River, the NYSDEC was previously authorized annually to capture a maximum of 500 adult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon with gill nets, and to measure, weigh, scan for tags, insert passive integrated transponder tags and Carlin tags (if untagged) and then release. The applicant now proposes to collect soft fin-ray tissue samples from all captured shortnose sturgeon. The goal of the additional research would be to document and map the genetic identity of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River. The modification would run concurrently with the original permit until October 31, 2011. Issuance of this modification, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit

(1)was applied for in good faith,

(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and

(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: April 2, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6484 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 040207A] Endangered Species; File No. 1580 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dynegy Northeast Generations, Inc. (Dynegy), 992-994 River Road, Newburgh, New York 12550, has been issued a permit to take shortnose sturgeon ( *Acipenser brevirostrum* ) for purposes of scientific research. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandy Hutnak or Malcolm Mohead, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 6, 2006, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 52534) that a request for a scientific research permit to take shortnose sturgeon had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). This permit authorizes Dynegy to annually capture up to 82 juvenile and adult shortnose sturgeon and 40 shortnose sturgeon larvae. Researchers are authorized to capture, handle, measure, weigh, scan for tags, Passive Integrated Transponder

(PIT)and Carlin tag, photograph, tissue sample, and release up to 82 juvenile and adult sturgeon. Additionally, researchers may lethally take up to 40 shortnose sturgeon larvae. This research will help to evaluate the life history, population trends, and spatial, temporal, and size distribution of the shortnose sturgeon collected in the Hudson River during an annual Biological Monitoring Program. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit

(1)was applied for in good faith,

(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and

(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: April 2, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6486 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Meeting of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a), Public Law 92-463, as amended, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming Meeting of the President's Commission on America's Returning Wounded Warriors. The purpose of the Committee meeting is to introduce new members and conduct briefings for the Commissioners. The meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space. Interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and make an oral presentation of such. Persons desiring to make an oral presentation or submit a written statement to the Committee must notify the point of contact listed below no later than 11 April 2007. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted only on 14 April at 1 to 2:45 p.m. before the full Committee. Presentations will be limited to 5 minutes. Number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public. Each person desiring to make an oral presentation must provide the point of contact listed below with one

(1)copy of the presentation by 11 April 2007, 5 p.m. and one copy of any material that is intended for distribution at the meeting. Persons submitting a written statement must submit one copy of the statement to the Commission staff by 5 p.m. POC Col Denise Dailey or Adrianne Holloway, toll free 877-599- 2035 or Fax statements

(703)588-2046. Due to scheduling difficulties the Commission was unable to finalize its agenda in time to publish a **Federal Register** meeting notice for the 15-calendar days required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement. DATES: Saturday, 14 April 2007. *Location:* Main Conference Center, National Transportation Safety Board, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For Further Information on Submitting Statements Contact:* Col Denise Dailey or Adrianne Holloway, toll free 877-599-2035 or Fax statements

(703)588-2046. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting agenda. 14 April 2007 8:30 a.m. Welcome Commissioners, Administrative Remarks and Level I Security Training 10 a.m. Public Session Presentations The Casualty System Disability System 12-1 p.m. Lunch 1-2:45 p.m. Public Presentations Records Transfer 5 p.m. Wrap Up Not Open to Public 8:30a.m.-10 a.m. Committee Administrative and Security Training. Date and Times Note: Exact order may vary. Dated: April 2, 2007. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD. [FR Doc. 07-1712 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents

CFR

U.S. Code