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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-04-10 · National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice

42,990 words·~195 min read·/register/2007/04/10/07-1772

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket No.: 070320063-7064-01] Advanced Technology Program Notice of Availability of Funds and Announcement of Public Meetings (Proposers' Conferences) AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NIST's Advanced Technology Program
(ATP)announces that it will hold a single fiscal year 2007 ATP competition and is soliciting proposals for financial assistance. ATP also announces that it will hold public meetings (Proposers' Conferences) for all interested parties. ATP is soliciting proposals in all technology areas (Competition Number 2007-A) as well as the following four broad Crosscutting Areas of National Interest:
(1)Technologies for Advanced and Complex Systems (Competition Number 2007-B),
(2)Challenges in Advanced Materials and Devices (Competition Number 2007-C),
(3)21st Century Manufacturing (Competition Number 2007-D), and
(4)Nanotechnology (Competition Number 2007-E). Details regarding these four broad Crosscutting Areas of National Interest are included in the Federal Funding Opportunity announcement available at *http://www.grants.gov.* ATP provides cost-shared multi-year funding to single companies and to industry-led joint ventures to accelerate the development and dissemination of challenging, high risk technologies with the potential for significant commercial payoffs and widespread benefits for the nation. This unique government-industry partnership aids companies in accelerating the development of emerging or enabling technologies that lead to revolutionary new products and industrial processes and services that can compete in rapidly changing world markets. ATP challenges the research and development (R&D) community to take on higher technical risk with commensurately higher potential payoffs for the nation than they would otherwise pursue. DATES: The due date for submission of all proposals is 3 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday, May 21, 2007. This deadline applies to any mode of proposal submission, including hand-delivery, courier, express mailing, and electronic. Do not wait until the last minute to submit a proposal. ATP will not make any allowances for late submissions, including incomplete Grants.gov registration. ADDRESSES: Proposals must be submitted to ATP as follows: *Paper submission:* Send to National Institute of Standards and Technology, Advanced Technology Program, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4701, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4701. *Electronic submission:* *http://www.grants.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Lambis at 301-975-4447 or by e-mail at *barbara.lambis@nist.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Additional Information:* The full Federal Funding Opportunity
(FFO)announcement for this request for proposals is available at *http://www.grants.gov.* The full FFO announcement text can also be accessed on the ATP Web site at *http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/helpful.htm.* To request a copy of the April 2007 ATP Proposal Preparation Kit submit an electronic request at *http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/atpform.htm* or call ATP at 1-800-ATP-FUND (1-800-287-3863). The Kit is also available at *http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/helpful.htm.* Note that ATP is mailing the Kit to all individuals whose names are currently on the ATP mailing list. Those individuals need not contact ATP to request a copy. *Meetings:* ATP is holding several public meetings (Proposers' Conferences) at several locations around the country. These public meetings provide general information regarding the program, tips on preparing proposals, and the opportunity for questions and answers. Proprietary technical or business discussions about specific project ideas with NIST staff are not permitted at these conferences or at any time before submitting the proposal to ATP. Therefore, you should not expect to have proprietary issues addressed at proposers' conferences. NIST/ATP staff will not critique proprietary project ideas while they are being developed by a proposer. However, NIST/ATP staff will, at any time, answer questions that you may have about our project selection criteria, selection process, eligibility requirements, cost-sharing requirements, and the general characteristics of a competitive ATP proposal. ATP Proposers' Conferences are being held from 9 a.m.-12:30 p.m. local time on the following dates and locations: *April 13, 2007:* NIST Red Auditorium, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD (301-975-2776) *April 16, 2007:* Hyatt Regency Dearborn Fairlane Town Center, Dearborn, Detroit, MI (313-593-1234) *April 18, 2007:* Hyatt Harborside at Boston's Logan International Airport, 101 Harborside Drive, Boston, MA (617-568-1234) *April 18, 2007:* Los Angeles Airport Marriott, 5855 West Century Blvd., Los Angeles, CA (310-641-5700) *April 20, 2007:* Hilton Austin Airport, 9515 Hotel Drive, Austin, TX (512-385-6767) No registration fee will be charged. Presentation materials from proposers' conferences will be made available on the ATP Web site. Pre-Registration Required By April 9, 2007 for All Proposers' Conferences as Follows *NIST Gaithersburg Conference:* Due to increased security at NIST, NO on-site registrations will be accepted and all attendees MUST be pre-registered. Photo identification must be presented at the NIST main gate to be admitted to the April 13, 2007 conference. Attendees must wear their conference badge at all times while on the NIST campus. Same day registration will be allowed at the other locations. *Electronic Registration:* At *https://rproxy.nist.gov/CRS/.* Please select the ATP Proposers' Conference and appropriate data to register for the meeting of your choice. *Telephone Registration:* Call 301-975-2776. *Fax Registration:* Provide the following and fax to 301-948-2067: last name, first name; title; organization; room or mail code, city, state, zip code, country; telephone; facsimile; e-mail; any special needs; and the meeting date and location. *Funding Availability:* Fiscal year 2007 appropriations include funds in the amount of approximately $60 million for new ATP awards. Approximately 60 awards are anticipated. *Statutory Authority:* 15 U.S.C. 278n. *CFDA:* 11.612, Advanced Technology Program (ATP). *Eligibility:* U.S.-owned, single, for-profit companies and industry-led joint ventures may apply for ATP funding. In addition, companies incorporated in the United States that have parent companies incorporated in another country may apply. The term company means a for-profit organization, including sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited-liability companies (LLCs), and corporations (15 CFR 295.2). *Cost Sharing Requirements:* Small (as defined at 15 CFR 295.2) and medium sized companies applying as single-company proposers are not required to provide cost sharing of direct costs; however, they may propose to pay a portion of the direct costs in addition to all indirect costs throughout the project. Large companies applying as single-company proposers must cost share at least 60 percent of the yearly total project costs (direct plus all of the indirect costs). A large company is defined as any business, including any parent company plus related subsidiaries, having annual revenues in excess of $3.960 billion. (Note that this number will likely be updated annually and will be noted in future annual announcements of availability of funds and revised editions of the ATP Proposal Preparation Kit.) Joint ventures must cost share more than 50 percent of the yearly total project costs (direct plus indirect costs). *Selection Procedures:* All proposals are selected based on a multi-stage peer-review process, as described in 15 CFR 295.4. All proposals are carefully reviewed by technical and business experts against the established ATP evaluation/selection criteria. A Source Evaluation Board
(SEB)(a committee made up of nine Federal employees) reviews proposals and makes recommendations for funding to a Selecting Official based on the technical and business evaluations and the selection criteria. The SEB ratings shall provide a rank order to the Selecting Official for final recommendation to the NIST Grants Officer. NIST/ATP reserves the right to negotiate the cost and scope of the proposed work with the proposers who have been selected to receive awards. For example, NIST/ATP may require that the proposer delete from the scope of work a particular task that is deemed by NIST/ATP to be product development or otherwise inappropriate for ATP support. All funding decisions are final and cannot be appealed. *Evaluation Criteria:* The evaluation criteria used to select a proposal for funding and their respective weights are found in 15 CFR 295.6. *Selection Factors:* The Selecting Official shall recommend for award in rank order unless a proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon the availability of funds, the adherence to ATP selection criteria, or the appropriate distribution of funds among technologies and their applications. NIST reserves the right to deny awards in any case where NIST determines that a reasonable doubt exists regarding a proposer's ability to comply with ATP requirements or to handle Federal funds responsibly. Ineligible Projects a. Straightforward improvements of existing products or product development. b. Projects that are basic research. c. Projects that are Phase II, III, or IV clinical trials. ATP rarely funds Phase I clinical trials and reserves the right not to fund a Phase I clinical trial. The portion of a Phase I trial that may be funded must be critical to meeting the scientific and technological merit selection criterion and the trial must be essential for completion of the study. The definitions of all phases of clinical trials are provided in the ATP Guidelines and Documentation Requirements for Research Involving Human & Animal Subjects located at *http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/helpful.htm.* d. Pre-commercial-scale demonstration projects where the emphasis is on demonstrating that some technology works on a large scale or is economically sound rather than on R&D that advances the state of the art. e. Projects that ATP believes would likely be completed without ATP funds in the same time frame or nearly the same time frame, or with the same scale or scope. f. Predominantly straightforward, routine data gathering (e.g., creation of voluntary consensus standards, data gathering/handbook preparation, testing of materials, or unbounded research aimed at basic discovery science) or application of standard engineering practices. g. Projects that are simply a follow-on or a continuation of tasks previously funded in ATP projects from essentially the same proposing team. h. Projects in which the only risk is market oriented—that is, the risk that the end product may not be embraced by the marketplace. i. Projects with software work, that are predominantly about final product details and product development, and that have significant testing that involve users outside the research team to determine if the software meets the original research objectives, are likely to be either uncompetitive or possibly ineligible for funding. However, R&D projects with limited software testing, involving users outside of the research team, may be considered eligible costs within an ATP award when the testing is critical to meeting the scientific and technological merit selection criterion and the testing is essential for completion of the proposed research. These types of projects may also be considered to involve human subjects in research. *Unallowable/Ineligible Costs.* The following items, regardless of whether they are allowable under the federal cost principles, are unallowable under ATP: a. Bid and proposal costs unless they are incorporated into a federally approved indirect cost rate. b. Construction costs for new buildings or extensive renovations of existing laboratory buildings. However, costs for the construction of experimental research and development facilities to be located within a new or existing building are allowable provided that the equipment or facilities are essential for carrying out the proposed scientific and technical project and are approved by the NIST Grants Officer. c. For research involving human and/or animal subjects, any costs used to secure Institutional Review Board or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approvals before the award or during the award. d. General purpose office equipment and supplies that are not used exclusively for the research, e.g., office computers, printers, copiers, paper, pens, and toner cartridges. e. Indirect costs for single-company recipients, which must be absorbed by the company. (Note that with large businesses submitting proposals as single-company proposers, indirect costs absorbed by the large business may be used to meet the cost-sharing requirement.) f. Marketing, sales, or commercialization costs, including marketing surveys, commercialization studies, and general business planning, unless they are included in a federally approved indirect cost rate. g. Office furniture costs, unless they are included in a federally approved indirect cost rate. h. Patent costs and legal fees, unless they are included in a federally approved indirect cost rate. i. Preaward costs. j. Profit, management fees, interest on borrowed funds, or facilities capital cost of money. k. Relocation costs, unless they are included in a federally approved indirect cost rate. l. Subcontractor expenses such as those for office supplies and conferences/workshops. m. Subcontracts to another part of the same company or to another company with identical or nearly identical ownership. Work proposed by another part of the same company or by another company with identical or nearly identical ownership should be shown as funded through interorganizational transfers that do not contain profit. Interorganizational transfers should be broken down in the appropriate budget categories. n. Tuition costs. However, a university participating in an ATP project as a subcontractor or as a joint venture partner may charge ATP for tuition remission or other forms of compensation in lieu of wages paid to university students working on ATP projects but only as provided in OMB Circular A-21, Section J.41. In such cases, tuition remission would be considered a cash contribution rather than an in-kind contribution. *Intellectual Property Requirements:* Title to any inventions arising from an ATP-funded project must be held by a for-profit company, or companies, incorporated or organized in the United States. A university, government laboratory, independent research organization, or other nonprofit organization cannot retain title to patents, although such organizations can receive mutually agreeable payments (either one-time or continuing) from the company or companies holding title to the patent. However, a for-profit corporation organized by a university can be considered a for-profit company for the purpose of retaining title to patents arising from an ATP award. In such a case, documentation of the for-profit status must be provided in the proposal. If your organization is not a for-profit company but plans to be involved in an ATP project, you will not be able to retain title to any patentable inventions arising from the ATP project. Please make sure your legal department is aware that ATP cannot waive this mandated provision (15 U.S.C. 278n(d)(11)(A) and 15 CFR 295.2 and 295.8). Title to any such invention shall not be transferred or passed, except to a for-profit company organized in the United States, until the expiration of the first patent obtained in connection with such invention. The United States reserves a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice or have practiced for or on behalf of the United States any patentable invention arising from an ATP award. The federal government shall not, however, in the exercise of such license, publicly disclose proprietary information related to the license. The federal government also has march-in rights in accordance with 15 CFR 295.8. Since its inception in 1990, ATP has not exercised its march-in rights nor has it used its nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license. *Projects Involving Human Subjects:* Research involving human subjects must be in compliance with applicable Federal regulations and NIST policies for the protection of human subjects. Human subjects research involves interactions with live human subjects or the use of data, images, tissue, and/or cells/cell lines (including those used for control purposes) from human subjects. Research involving human subjects may include activities such as the use of image and/or audio recording of people, taking surveys or using survey data, using databases containing personal information, testing software with volunteers, and many tasks beyond those within traditional biomedical research. A Human Subjects Determination Checklist is included in the April 2007 ATP Proposal Preparation Kit as Exhibit 2 ( *http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/helpful.htm* ) to assist you in determining whether your proposal has human subjects involvement, which would require additional documents with your proposal. Detailed information regarding the use of human subjects in research projects and required documentation is available in the ATP Guidelines and Documentation Requirements for Research Involving Human & Animal Subjects located at *http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/helpful.htm* or by calling 1-800-287-3863. *Projects Involving Animal Subjects:* Research involving animal subjects must be in compliance with applicable federal regulations and NIST policies for the protection of animal subjects. Vertebrate animal research involves live animals that are being cared for, euthanized, or used by the project participants to accomplish research goals or for teaching or testing. The regulations do not apply to animal tissues purchased from commercial processors or tissue banks or to uses of preexisting images of animals (e.g., a wildlife documentary or pictures of animals in newscasts). The regulations do apply to any animals that are housed and cared for by a project participant and used for custom collection of biological samples or observation data of health and behavior. Detailed information regarding the use of animal subjects in research projects and required documentation is available in the ATP Guidelines and Documentation Requirements for Research Involving Human & Animal Subjects located at *http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/helpful.htm* or by calling 1-800-287-3863. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements: The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) is applicable to this announcement. On the form SF-424 (R&R), the applicant's 9-digit Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number must be entered in the Organizational DUNS line. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* This notice contains collection of information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Forms NIST-1262 and NIST-1263, SF-424 (R&R), Research and Related Other Project Information, SF-424B, SF-LLL, CD-346, and Budget Narrative form has been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0693-0009, 4040-0001, 4040-0001, 4040-0007, 0348-0046, 0605-0001, and 0693-0009. 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 of information, subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. *Executive Order 12866:* This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. *Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs):* ATP does not involve the mandatory payment of any matching funds from state or local government and does not affect directly any state or local government. Accordingly, the Department of Commerce has determined that Executive Order 12372 is not applicable to this program. *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. *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 notices relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)). Because notice and comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* Dated: April 3, 2007. William Jeffrey, Director, NIST. [FR Doc. E7-6650 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction Meeting AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR), will meet at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)on Thursday, May 10, 2007 from 9:30 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. and Friday, May 11, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. The primary purpose of this meeting is to discuss NEHRP program activities. The NEHRP Advisory Committee will also discuss its annual report to the NIST Director. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NEHRP Web site at *http://nehrp.gov/* . DATES: The meeting will convene on May 10, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 5:45 p.m. on May 10, 2007. The meeting will resume on May 11, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. and end at 12 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Employee Lounge, in the Administration Building at NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jack Hayes, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8600, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8600. Dr. Hayes' e-mail address is *jack.hayes@nist.gov* and his phone number is
(301)975-5640. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was established in accordance with the requirements of Section 103 of the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-360). The Committee is composed of 15 members appointed by the Director of NIST who were selected for their technical expertise and experience, established records of distinguished professional service, and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. In addition, the Chairperson of the United States Geological Survey
(USGS)Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) will serve in an ex officio capacity on the Committee. *The Committee will assess:* • Trends and developments in the science and engineering of earthquake hazards reduction; • The effectiveness of NEHRP in performing its statutory activities (improved design and construction methods and practices; land use controls and redevelopment; prediction techniques and early-warning systems; coordinated emergency preparedness plans; and public education and involvement programs); • Any need to revise NEHRP; and • The management, coordination, implementation, and activities of NEHRP. Background information on NEHRP and the Advisory Committee is available at *http://nehrp.gov/.* Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR), will meet Thursday, May 10, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 5:45 p.m. on May 10, 2007. The meeting will resume on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. and end at 12 p.m. The meeting will be held at NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The primary purpose of this meeting is to discuss NEHRP program activities. The NEHRP Advisory Committee will also discuss its annual report to the NIST Director. The meeting will be open to the public. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Web site at *http://nehrp.gov/* . Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda. On May 10, 2007, approximately one-half hour will be reserved for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about 3 minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the NEHRP Advisory Committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8610, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8610, via fax at
(301)975-4032, or electronically by e-mail to *info@nehrp.gov* . All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by close of business Thursday, May 3, 2007, in order to attend. Please submit your name, time of arrival, e-mail address and phone number to Amber Stillrich and she will provide you with instructions for admittance. Non-U.S. citizens must also submit their country of citizenship, title, employer/sponsor, and address. Ms. Stillrich's e-mail address is *amber.stillrich@nist.gov* and her phone number is
(301)975-3777. Dated: April 4, 2007. William Jeffrey, Director. [FR Doc. E7-6746 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030907B] Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; An On-ice Marine Geophysical Research and Development Program in the Beaufort Sea AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA)to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting an on-ice marine geophysical research and development (R&D) program in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, has been issued to Shell Offshore, Inc.
(SOI)for a period between March and May 2007. DATES: This authorization is effective from March 30 until May 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, IHA, an Environmental Assessment
(EA)on the *Proposed OCS Lease Sale 202 Beaufort Sea Planning Area* by the Mineral Management Service (MMS), 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)271-5006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Permission shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except for certain categories of activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or
(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. Summary of Request On January 17, 2007, NMFS received an application from SOI for the taking, by harassment, of three species of marine mammals incidental to conducting an on-ice marine geophysical R&D program. The proposed R&D program would occur on the U.S. Minerals Management Service
(MMS)Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)lease blocks located offshore from Oliktok Point, Milne Point, West Dock, or Endeavor Islands, in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. This on-ice R&D will consist of 35 linear miles (56 km) of surveying with in a 16 km 2 (6.2 mi 2 ) area. The prospective locations have been selected on the basis of suitability for the scientific testing and proximity to facilities to help minimize impact on the region. The water depth at each location is less than 20 m (66 ft); deep enough that the ice is not grounded. Ice conditions within the proposed survey area will determine the area selected, and SOI will consult with MMS and NMFS before the selection is made. The proposed program is expected to begin in March and last until May, 2007. Sources and receivers would be placed above and below the ice in attempts to find pairings that provide the best mitigation of seismic noise in a shallow marine environment where conventional seismic vessels cannot operate. A variety of instruments will be used to create a complete catalogue of data for development of noise mitigation techniques. Sources include standard and lightweight vibrators, accelerated weight drop (impact) sources on the ice, and small volume airgun arrays deployed through holes augered in the ice. Receivers will be deployed both on the ice surface, as well as below the ice suspended in the water column and on the ocean floor. The program will also require a temporary camp facility geared to accommodate up to 100 people. A detailed description of these activities was published in the **Federal Register** on February 6, 2007 (72 FR 5421). No changes have been made to these proposed R&D activities. Comments and Responses A notice of receipt and request for public comment on the application and proposed authorization was published on February 6, 2007 (72 FR 5421). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received the following comments from one private citizen, the North Slope Borough (NSB), the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS), and the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). Overall, the NSB supports the efforts to collect geological data from the ice instead of during the open water period when bowhead whales ( *Balaena mysticetus* ) and other marine mammals might be present and significant subsistence activity takes place. The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the IHA provided that the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures are carried out as described in the application and the previous **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007), with the exception of the proposed adjustment of the initial exclusion zone around active seal structures (see Commission comments below). *Comment 1:* One private citizen opposes the project out of concern that marine mammals would be killed by the proposed project in Beaufort Sea. *NMFS Response:* As described in detail in the **Federal Register** notice of receipt of the application (72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007), no marine mammals will be killed or injured as a result of the proposed on-ice seismic R&D program by SOI. The project would only result in Level B behavioral harassment of a small number of ringed seals and bearded and spotted seals. No take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated or authorized from this project. *Comment 2:* The NSB questions the statement SOI stated in its application that it wants to “... create a complete catalogue of data for development of noise mitigation techniques.” NSB mentions that it is not clear what this statement means given that SOI would be using an airgun and vibrators, which would create noise, not mitigate it. *SOI Response:* The proposed on-ice work is being conducted in an effort to develop mitigative alternatives to open water seismic acquisition. Several technologies are being evaluated both for their efficacy for acquiring subsurface data and for reducing environmental impacts of seismic operations. By evaluating multiple technologies during an on-ice experiment, it is hoped that a mitigative alternative to open water seismic surveys can be identified or developed. *Comment 3:* The NSB points out that in the SOI's application, it stated that the geophysical program would occur in a 16 km 2 (6.2 mi 2 ) area. However, the accompanying map shows a much larger area of approximately 15 by 60 miles (24 x 97 km) in size. The NSB questions in which portion of this larger area the proposed on-ice R&D program would be conducted. *SOI Response:* The included map depicts general regions being considered for project placement. Final location will depend on a combination of suitable ice conditions, operational efficiency, and locations away from permit restrictions (e.g., seal lairs, etc.). SOI will consult with NMFS and MMS regarding the selection of the final location. Nonetheless, the project footprint is 16 km 2 (6.2 mi 2 ). *Comment 4:* The NSB states that in discussion with SOI, it appears that the company has already conducted considerable work for the establishment of a camp on the ice and perhaps has even already set up the camp or begun geophysical work. This is peculiar given that an IHA has not yet been issued and that comments are due on the application on March 8, 2007. If SOI is already conducting operations, especially seismic, it is likely they are already taking ringed seals. The NSB suggests that NMFS investigate SOI's operations for the taking of marine mammals if those operations have already begun. *SOI Response:* SOI's contractor, Veritas DGC has been performing ice profiling reconnaissance visits to measure ice thickness. These visits were necessary to assess at which location ice is thick enough to safely execute the project. Veritas DGC conducted these flights under the coverage of a USFWS Letter of Authorization for the incidental take of polar bears. Arnold Brower, Sr. accompanied Veritas DGC on these flights to provide wildlife observations and traditional knowledge on ice thicknesses based on his observations of surface ice conditions. No marine mammals were observed during these ice thickness assessments during which ice was bored and thicknesses measured. No marine mammals were taken. *NMFS Response:* NMFS Office of Protected Resources has contacted the Office for Law Enforcement
(OLE)in the Alaska Division regarding NSB's comment. The OLE has initiated an investigation on this issue. *Comment 5:* The NSB states that it agrees with NMFS and SOI's assessment on the potential take of ringed, bearded, and spotted seas, and further states that it's extremely unlikely that any spotted seal will be in the project vicinity. However, the NSB is concerned that bowhead whales and belugas ( *Delphinapterus leucas* ) could be potentially taken as a result of the proposed action. NSB states that bowheads and belugas typically begin passing by Barrow in mid-April, and that in a typical year, bowheads and belugas could be off the project area by mid-April within several days of passing Barrow. The NSB further states that in 2007, ice is very light and there are considerable areas of open water between Barrow and the Beaufort Sea. NMFS *Response:* The nature of the proposed on-ice seismic R&D program would require ice thickness of at least 50 in (1.3 m) to support the heavy equipment and personnel, and the nearest lead would be at least 10 mi (16 km) away. This is not typical habitat for cetacean species, including bowhead and beluga whales, thus, no cetacean species is likely to be found in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, NMFS does not believe the proposed project would affect bowhead or beluga whales. Due to safety concerns, SOI will not operate in an area where the ice condition is thin enough to allow an open lead to develop. As stated in the previous **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007), SOI will consult with NMFS and MMS before camp mobilization within the project area based on ice conditions and safety of access to ice. *Comment 6:* The NSB states that the propagation data from the open water period is not sufficient for establishing safety or disturbance zones. The NSB states that while the sea ice is likely to dampen some frequencies of sound, there is also the likelihood that the ice may channel sounds, especially just below the ice. *NMFS Response:* It is well supported by scientific research that a major source of low-frequency loss in the Arctic is conversion of acoustic waves into flexural waves of the ice sheet, thus attenuating acoustic propagation under ice (Richardson 3 , 1995). Thus, NMFS does not believe there are sound channeling effects caused by ice in the proposed project area. In particular, the NSB did not provide any scientific support for its comment regarding “ice channeling sounds.” In the Arctic region, the axis of the deep sound channel may exist at or near the surface, which is due to cold temperature at the surface that causes the sound ray to refract upward, but it is not induced by ice-cover and it only occurs in area where the ocean is sufficiently deep (Urick, 1983). The proposed project area is only 20 m (66 ft), therefore, it is highly unlikely an arctic surface channel will form in the proposed project area. Although Richardson *et al.*
(1995)noted that smooth annual ice may enhance propagation of high-frequency sounds under-ice at compared with open water conditions, those sounds are not a major component from the proposed seismic program. In addition, the safety zone for seismic surveys by airgun will be empirically verified to match the 190 dB *re:* 1 microPa rms for pinnipeds to prevent any impacts on marine mammals from sound pressure levels higher than that. *Comment 7:* The NSB states that ambient sounds are often lower during periods of ice cover compared to the open water period. Thus, the NSB is concerned that if channeling occurs and ambient levels under ice are lower than open water, marine mammals may be subjected to louder SPLs at farther distances than suggested by data collected during the open water period. *NMFS Response:* Contrary to what the NSB claims in the comment, sea ice noise contributes a large part of the ambient sound level at high latitudes. Sea ice noise often results from
(1)thermal stress, in which temperature changes induce cracking; and
(2)mechanical stress, in which ice deformation under pressure from wind and currents; and causes significant noise at low frequencies (Richardson et al., 1995). It was noted that a pressure ridge active over a 3-day period produced tones at frequencies of 4 - 200 Hz. Although ambient noise levels have been found lower under certain types of stable sea ice, it is actually a result from the dampening effects by ice, where there is 100 percent ice cover and no waves or surf are present (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). As mentioned in *Response* to *Comment 6* , this dampening effect would reduce noise levels from the proposed project as well. Regarding the “ice channeling effects,” please refer to NMFS *Response* to *Comment 6* . *Comment 8:* The NSB is further concerned that if channeling occurs and leads in the Beaufort Sea are relatively near shore, bowheads and belugas could also be taken. *NMFS Response:* Regarding the “ice channeling affects,” please refer to NMFS *Response* to *Comment 6* . Also, as mentioned in Response to Comment 6 that although smooth annual ice may enhance propagation of high-frequency sounds under-ice at compared with open water conditions, with increased cracking, ridging, and other forms of roughness, transmission losses generally become higher than when the water is open (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). In addition, as mentioned in *Response* to *Comment 5* , no seismic program will be conducted within 10 mi (16 km) of open lead for safety concerns. As a result, NMFS believes that, because channeling in shallow waters of the nearshore Beaufort Sea is unlikely, no cetaceans are likely to be taken by this activity. *Comment 9:* The NSB points out that the most recent information about spotted seal abundance in the Beaufort Sea was not included in the SOI's application and NMFS **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007). Citing R. Suydam's personal communication, the NSB states that there is a haul out area for spotted seals in Dease Inlet, in addition to the spotted seal haul out area in the Colville Delta discussed in the notice. The NSB suggests that NMFS consider this information about spotted seal numbers in the Beaufort Sea in future assessments of industrial impacts. *NMFS Response:* NMFS has determined, and the NSB concurred (see *Comment 5* ), that few, if any, spotted seals would be taken by Level B behavioral harassment as a result of the SOI's on-ice geophysical R&D program. Nonetheless, the information NMFS uses for making a determination whether the issuance of an IHA is consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA is based on the best scientific information available. This best scientific information is usually in the form of peer-reviewed material and scientific publications resulted from empirical research. Personal communications are sometimes considered when there is a lack of other information for making a determination. In such case, NMFS would contact the information source and assess whether the information acquired based on personal communications is scientifically supported before such information is used in decision making. NMFS encourages the NSB to provide information regarding spotted seal population abundance in the Dease Inlet region. *Comment 10:* The NSB is concerned that not all the seal breathing holes or lairs will be located prior to SOI's on-ice program. The NSB points out that the description of how lairs and breathing holes will be located is not adequate to assess whether all lairs will be located. Citing a personal communication with Tom Smith, the NSB also points out that the contractor that SOI is planning to use to locate lairs would only locate 80 percent of the lairs unless repeated surveys are conducted. *NMFS Response:* A detailed seal breathing holes and lairs survey protocol by 3 trained dogs by transects that are spaced 250 m (820 ft) apart was described in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007), and is not repeated here. A more detailed report using seal lair-detecting dogs by Smith
(2006)is available upon request. This reported states that at distances of more than 0.25 miles (400 m, or 1,320 ft) the dogs can detect 80 percent or more of the seal structures in an area.Since the seal structure transects are more closely spaced for the SOI's on-ice program (250 m, or 820 ft), the detection rate will be over 90 percent (T. Smith. Eco Marine. Pers. Comm. March, 2007). In addition, this project will use 3 dogs, which would further increase the detection rate. It is also important to understand that even though 100 percent ringed seals would not be detected within the 16 km 2 (6.2 mi 2 ) R&D project area, the site where the equipment will be placed and the route where vehicles travel will be adequately surveyed and marked so that Level A harassment will be prevented. *Comment 11:* The NSB states that ringed seals could also sustain hearing damage without understanding how sound may be channeled under the ice. NSB is concerned that female ringed seals will likely remain near their pups even with considerable amounts of human activities, therefore could be within the 190 dB zone of seismic activities if not all lairs are found or sound propagates farther than during the open water period. NMFS *Response:* Please refer to NMFS *Response* to *Comment 6* regarding “ice channeling effects.” As stated in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007), during active seismic and impact source testing, an on-ice 500-m (1,640-ft) exclusion zone will be established. This 500-m (1,640-ft) exclusion zone is much large than the 180 dB re: 1 microPa isopleth (modeled at 330 m, or 1,083 ft). The modeled 190 dB re: 1 microPa coincides to a safety zone of 120 m (394 ft) in radius, which is easily surveyed for the presence of seals, and will be monitored throughout the seismic operations by qualified NMFS-approved marine mammal observers (MMOs). The presence of any marine mammals will be detected first by dog surveys, and then by continued monitoring during the operations. Therefore, NMFS does not believe any marine mammals will be exposed to SPLs higher than 190 dB *re:* 1 microPa. *Comment 12:* The NSB points out that the data SOI used for ringed seal density estimates (Stirling *et al.* , 1982; Kingsley, 1986) are quite old. The NSB suggests that more recent data from BP's Northstar development island and from recent work conducted by either Tom Smith or Brendon Kelly be used (references not provided). *NMFS Response:* In reviewing and making determination on the issuance of an IHA to SOI for its proposed on-ice R&D project, NMFS used the most recent available scientific data regarding ringed seal density in the proposed project area from works conducted by Kelly and Quakenbush (1990), Frost and Lowry (1999), and Moulton *et al.* , (2002), which was based from studies at the Northstar development. Earlier ringed seal density estimates reported by Stirling *et al.*
(1982)and Kingsley
(1986)were not included in NMFS' analysis. Please refer to **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007) for a detailed description. *Comment 13:* The NSB points out that SOI's statement that “[t]here has been no major displacement of seals away from on-ice seismic operations” is a misinterpretation of Frost *et al.* 's
(1988)paper. Citing personal communication with K. Frost, the NSB states that surveys for seals in the mid-1980s occurred too far after on-ice seismic had occurred to make any conclusions about impacts from on-ice seismic on ringed seal distribution. The NSB suggests that NMFS requires SOI to conduct adequate studies to further the knowledge of impacts of seismic activities on ringed seals. *NMFS Response:* NMFS concurs with the NSB's comment that SOI's assessment regarding impacts of on-ice seismic operations on ringed seals based on research conducted in mid-1980s is inadequate. Nonetheless, the most recent studies by Moulton et al.
(2005)and Williams *et al.*
(2006)did show that effects of oil and gas development on local distribution of seals and seal lairs are no more than slight, and are small relative to the effects of natural environmental factors. A detailed description is provided in the February 6, 2007, **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 5421). Although Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to institute requirements to grantees of incidental take authorizations pertaining to mitigation, monitoring, and reporting, NMFS has no clear legislative authority to require SOI to conduct studies to further the knowledge of impacts of seismic activities on ringed seals. *Comment 14:* The NSB points out that SOI relied on outdated ringed seal density data for calculating the number of seals for harassment. The NSB states that site-specific data area needed on seal density, and that if data are not available for assessing and mitigating impacts to seals, then SOI should be required to collect data during this season so that a reasonable assessment of takes of ringed seals and other marine mammals is possible and adequate mitigation measures are available for reducing impacts in the future. *NMFS Response:* NMFS concurs with the NSB that outdated ringed seal density data were used by SOI in calculating take estimates for the proposed on-ice R&D project. Nonetheless, these data were not used by NMFS in the analysis of the IHA issuance and the estimate of take numbers. NMFS used the most recent data regarding ringed seal abundance in the proposed project area from works conducted by Kelly and Quakenbush (1990), Frost and Lowry (1999), and Moulton *et al.* ,
(2002)to calculate the estimated take number. Please refer to **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007) for detailed description and calculation of estimated take levels. *Comment 15:* The Commission recommends that the safety zone for pinnipeds be enlarged to the 180 dB re: 1 microPa rms isopleth. The Commission believes that a more conservative approach should be taken and that less drastic changes to the exclusion zone should be contemplated. The Commission states that this is because the susceptibility of seals to sounds when in lairs may be higher and their options for avoiding sound sources more limited. *NMFS Response:* The 190 dB *re:* 1 microPa rms is used in estimating the onset of temporary threshold shift
(TTS)for pinniped hearing underwater when exposed to pulse sounds from airguns during seismic surveys. Based on the best available scientific information, this criteria is conservative in terms of preventing TTS occurrence in pinnipeds. Although it is tempting to set a larger safety zone to achieve a lower SPL for noise exposure, doing so often compromises the effectiveness of monitoring since a much larger area would have to be observed. Therefore, a larger safety zone based on 180 dB re: 1 microPa rms will not necessarily provide extra protection for seals. Regarding the possibility of seals in the lairs being exposed to higher SPLs, NMFS does not believe that will occur under the proposed on-ice seismic R&D program. First, the work site will be surveyed by up to 3 trained dogs looking for seal structure prior to seismic operations. As a result, any work location will be at least 500 m (1,640 ft) away from the nearest seal structure, which corresponds to a zone with sound pressure levels below 180 dB re: 1 microPa on its outer boundary. Second, even if there were seals in lairs within the safety zone, most acoustic energies from the airgun are emitted under the water and may not even be audible by seals in lairs. Third, if audible and annoying, ringed seals have a number of lairs and breathing holes available in their area. As noted in previous **Federal Register** notices, ringed seals, and even new born pups, move frequently from lair to lair for various biological reasons. If sounds from an acoustic source are annoying to the ringed seal, with or without a pup, these animals can easily move to a new location, a Level B harassment. Therefore, NMFS does not believe it is beneficial to enlarge the safety zone to 180 dB re: 1 microPa rms isopleth. *Comment 16:* The ICAS points out that the proposed project area is known to get a lot of ice pressure ridges and a few open leads during the project period, and that the ice may only be 3.5 ft (1 m) in thickness from the short time the ocean is frozen. The ICAS states that the early break-up of ice in recent years indicates that the proposed project may be jeopardized from unforeseen ice surges and movements. The ICAS is concerned that SOI may not be able to retrieve its heavy equipment if there is an early spring break-up, and that the sinking of any equipment into the ocean would affect bowhead migration later on. *NMFS Response:* As discussed in *Response* to *Comment 5* , the proposed on-ice seismic R&D program would require ice thickness of at least 50 in (1.3 m) to support the heavy equipment and personnel, and the nearest lead would be at least 10 mi (16 km) away. Due to safety concerns, SOI will not operate in an area where ice is thin enough to allow an open lead. As stated in the previous **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 5421, February 6, 2007), SOI will consult with NMFS and MMS before camp mobilization within the project area based on ice conditions and safety of access to ice. *Comment 17:* The ICAS recommends to SOI additional stipulations:
(1)that SOI employ 4 subsistence representatives for safety of the group from possible sudden ice surges and look out for opening of new lead to warm SOI personnel by contract or internal hire from SOI of this project;
(2)that the camp's solid waste be transported daily, to prevent the added attraction from polar bears and foxes;
(3)additional two night watchmen to look for open leads during down time of project;
(4)two snow machines for the open lead watchman for quick travel; and
(5)no fuel storage out on the ice road or ice pads. *NMFS Response:* SOI has informed NMFS of the following:
(1)SOI, through its geophysical contractor, Veritas DGC, will employ 4 Inupiat subsistence representatives, 2 per 12-hour shift, to scout ice conditions and observe wildlife while the activities of the on-ice seismic project are conducted.
(2)All solid waste will be incinerated on site.
(3)Other than adverse weather days, there will be no down time on the project. Two Inupiat subsistence representatives will be on each shift scouting for open leads, in addition to observations of wildlife.
(4)Veritas DGC will transport subsistence advisors via a Tucker or Haaglund from the project camp site to and from the watchmen's on-ice shift duties.
(5)Veritas DGC has permitted for fuel storage facilities at camp, as per NSB Permit 07-176 and Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas Permit MLUP/NS 06-14. Description of Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity Four marine mammal species are known to occur within the proposed survey area: ringed seal ( *Phoca hispida* ), bearded seal ( *Erignathus barbatus* ), spotted seal ( *Phoca larghs* ), and polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ). Although polar bears are now proposed to be listed as threatened, none of these species are listed under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)as endangered or threatened species. Other marina mammal species that seasonally inhabit the Beaufort Sea, but are not anticipated to occur in the project area during the proposed R&D program, include bowhead whales and beluga whales ( *Delphinapterus leucas* ). SOI will seek a take Authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the incidental taking of polar bears because USFWS has management authority for this species. A detailed description of these species can be found in Angliss and Outlaw (2005), 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 the proposed action area provided in the February 6, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 5421). Therefore, it is not repeated here. Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat Seismic surveys using acoustic energy, such as airguns and weigh drop impact sources, may have the potential to adversely impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the activities (Gordon *et al.* , 2004). The sound source level of the GL airgun to be used in the proposed project is 228 dB re: 1 microPa at 1 m, which is strong enough to cause hearing threshold shift
(TS)in pinnipeds when exposed for an extended duration (Kastak et al., 1999). However, it is extremely unlikely that any animals would be exposed to a sound pressure level
(SPL)of this magnitude since acoustic energy is attenuated as it propagates through the water column. Preliminary results of the acoustic modeling, which did not take the ice effects into consideration, shows that the received sound pressure levels
(SPLs)dropped down to 190, 180, and 160 dB re: 1 microPa root mean square
(RMS)at distances of 120 m (394 ft), 330 m (1,083 ft), and 2.22 km (1.38 mi), respectively. However, with the sea ice dampening effects, actual received SPLs at these distances are expected to be lower (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). In addition, most acoustic energy from an airgun is directed downward, and the short duration of each pulse limits the total energy (Richardson et al., 1995). Intense acoustic signals from seismic surveys are also known to cause behavioral alteration in marine mammals 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. One controlled exposure experiment using small airguns (source level: 215 224 dB re: 1 microPa peak-to-peak (p-p)) was conducted on harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina* ) and gray seals ( *Halichoerus grypus* ) that had been fitted with telemetry devices showed fright responses in two harbor seals when playback started (Thompson *et al.* , 1998). Their heart rate dropped dramatically from 35 45 beats/min to 5 10 beats/min. However, these responses were short-lived and following a typical surfacing tachycardia; there were no further dramatic drops in heart rate. Harbor seals showed strong avoidance behavior, swimming rapidly away from the source. Stomach temperature tags revealed that they ceased feeding during this time. Only one seal showed no detectable response to the airguns and approached to within 300 m (984 ft) of the sound source. The behavior of harbor seals seemed to return to normal soon after the end of each trial. Similar avoidance responses were also documented in gray seals. By contrast, sighting rates of ringed seals from a seismic vessel in shallow Arctic waters showed no difference between periods with the full array, partial array, or no airguns firing (Harris *et al.* , 2001). Incidental harassment to marine mammals could also result from physical activities associated with on-ice seismic operations, which have the potential to disturb and temporarily displace some seals. Pup mortality could occur if any of these animals were nursing and displacement were protracted. However, it is unlikely that a nursing female would abandon her pup given the normal levels of disturbance from the proposed activities, potential predators, and the typical movement patterns of ringed seal pups among different holes. Seals also use as many as four lairs spaced as far as 3,437 m (11,276 ft) apart. In addition, seals have multiple breathing holes. Pups may use more holes than adults, but the holes are generally closer together than those used by adults. This indicates that adult seals and pups can move away from seismic activities, particularly since the seismic equipment does not remain in any specific area for a prolonged time. Given those considerations, combined with the small proportion of the population potentially disturbed by the proposed activity, impacts are expected to be negligible for the ringed, bearded, and spotted seal populations. The seismic surveys would only introduce acoustic energy into the water column and no objects would be released into the environment. In addition, the total footprint of the proposed seismic survey area covers approximately 16 km2 (6.2 mi2), which represents only a small fraction of the Beaufort Sea pinniped habitat. Sea-ice surface rehabilitation is often immediate, occurring during the first episode of snow and wind that follows passage of the equipment over the ice. 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 seismic impulses (Engas *et al.* , 1996). Limited studies on physiological effects on marine invertebrates showed that no significant adverse effects from seismic energy were detected for Squid and cuttlefish (McCauley *et al* ., 2000) or in snow crabs (Christian *et al.* , 2003). Based on the foregoing discussion, 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 up to 30 ringed seals and much fewer bearded and spotted seals could be taken by Level B harassment as a result of the proposed on-ice geophysical R&D program. The estimate take number is based on consideration of the number of ringed seals that might be disturbed within the 16 km 2 proposed project area plus up to 13 km (8 mi) travel route from camp site to work site (travel route is estimated to be 0.1 km wide), calculated from the adjusted ringed seal density of 1.73 seal per km 2 (Kelly and Quakenbush, 1990). This number represents approximately 0.17 percent of the total ringed seal population (estimated at 18,000) for the Beaufort Sea (Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). Due to the unavailability of reliable bearded and spotted seals densities within the proposed project area, NMFS is unable to estimate take numbers for these two species. However, it is expected much fewer bearded and spotted seals would subject to takes by Level B harassment since their occurrence is much lower within the proposed project area, especially during spring (Moulton and Lawson, 2002; Treacy, 2002a; 2002b; Bengtson et al., 2005). Consequently, the levels of take of these 2 pinniped species by Level B harassment within the proposed project area would represent only small fractions of the total population sizes of these species in Beaufort Sea. In addition, NMFS expected that the actual take of Level B harassment by the proposed geophysical program would be much lower with the implementation of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures discussed below. Therefore, NMFS believes that any potential impacts to ringed, bearded, and spotted seals to the proposed on-ice geophysical seismic program would be insignificant, and would be limited to distant and transient exposure. Potential Effects on Subsistence Residents of the village of Nuiqsut are the primary subsistence users in the activity area. The subsistence harvest during winter and spring is primarily ringed seals, but during the open-water period both ringed and bearded seals are taken. Nuiqsut hunters may hunt year round; however, most of the harvest has been in open water instead of the more difficult hunting of seals at holes and lairs (McLaren, 1958; Nelson, 1969). Subsistence patterns may be reflected through the harvest data collected in 1992, when Nuiqsut hunters harvested 22 of 24 ringed seals and all 16 bearded seals during the open water season from July to October (Fuller and George, 1997). Harvest data for 1994 and 1995 show 17 of 23 ringed seals were taken from June to August, while there was no record of bearded seals being harvested during these years (Brower and Opie, 1997). Only a small number of ringed seals was harvested during the winter to early spring period, which corresponds to the time of the proposed on-ice seismic operations. Based on harvest patterns and other factors, on-ice seismic operations in the activity area are not expected to have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of ringed and bearded seals because:
(1)Operations would end before the spring ice breakup, after which subsistence hunters harvest most of their seals.
(2)The area where seismic operations would be conducted is small compared to the large Beaufort Sea subsistence hunting area associated with the extremely wide distribution of ringed seals. In order to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the species and the subsistence use of ringed seals, SOI has notified and provided the affected subsistence community with a draft plan of cooperation. SOI held community meeting with the affected Beaufort Sea communities in mid-October 2006 and held meetings again in early 2007 to discuss proposed activities and to resolve potential conflicts regarding any aspects of either the operation or the plan of cooperation. Mitigation and Monitoring The following mitigation and monitoring measures are required for the subject on-ice seismic surveys. All activities shall be conducted as far as practicable from any observed ringed seal lair and no energy source will be placed over a seal lair. To further reduce potential impact to pinniped habitat, no ice road will be built between the mobile camp and work site. Travel between mobile camp and work site will be done by vehicles driving through snow road, which is about 4 - 8 mi (6 - 13 km) depending on camp location. SOI will employ trained seal lair sniffing dogs to locate seal structures under snow (subnivean) in the proposed work area and camp site before the seismic program begins. The recommended prospective area for the proposed project will be surveys for the subnivean seal structures using 3 trained dogs running together. Transects will be spaced 250 m (820 ft) apart and oriented 90o to the prevailing wind direction. The search tracks of the dogs will be recorded by GPS units on the dogs and the tracks will be downloaded daily. Subnivean structures located will be probed by steel rod to check if each is open (active), or frozen (abandoned). Structures will be categorized by size, structure and odor to ascertain whether the structure is a birth lair, resting lair, resting lair of rutting male seals, or a breathing hole. Locations of seal structures will be marked and monitored and adjustment to the seismic operation will be made to avoid the lairs. SOI will also use trained dogs to survey the snow road and establish a route where no seal structure presents. The surveyed road will be entered into GPS and flagged for vehicles to follow. Vehicles must avoid any pressure ridges, ice ridges, and ice deformation areas where seal structures are likely to be present. Seismic sources for the program will be recorded into 5 sensor groups: analog surface receivers, digital surface receivers, hydrophones in the water column, and 3 different types of 4-component ocean bottom sensors on the seafloor. Each source will be recorded into the 5 receiver groups. Water column monitoring of SPLs will be most directly accomplished by monitoring SPLs from the hydrophones. Density of receivers is very high, with spacing of 5 m (16.4 ft), so a detailed characterization of the SPLs can be accomplished. A range of receiver offsets will be available up to the maximum program offset of 4,000 m (13,123 ft). Additionally, the surface and ocean bottom censors can be used as supplemental information in the determination of source levels and propagation distances for the experiment. A 500-m (1,640-ft) exclusion zone will be established around all located active subnivean seal structures, within which no seismic or impact surveys will be conducted. During active seismic and impact source testing an on-ice 500-m (1,640-ft) safety zone will be established. The size of the safety zone shall then be adjusted to match the 190 dB *re:* 1 microPa rms isopleth based on seismic source monitoring. On ice monitoring must be conducted by a trained, NMFS-approved marine mammal observer
(MMO)for entry by any marine mammal. No seismic or impact surveys will be conducted if a marine mammal is observed entering the monitored safety zone. To further reduce the potential impacts to marine mammals, SOI must implement soft-start (ramp-up) procedure when starting operations of the airgun or impact sources. Airgun and impact sources will be initiated at 50 percent of its full level and slowly (not more than 6 dB per 5 minutes) increase their power to full capacity. Reporting A final report must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of completing the project.The report must contain detailed description of any marine mammal, by species, number, age class, and sex if possible, that is sighted in the vicinity of the proposed project area; location and time of the animal sighted; whether the animal exhibits a behavioral reaction to any on-ice activities or is injured or killed; and the context of the behavior change. Endangered Species Act
(ESA)NMFS has determined that no species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA will be affected by issuing an incidental harassment authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to SOI for the proposed on-ice seismic survey. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)The information provided in the EA on the *Proposed OCS Lease Sale 202 Beaufort Sea Planning Area* by the MMS in August 2006 led NMFS to conclude that implementation of either the preferred alternative or other alternatives identified in the EA would not have a significant impact on the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement was not prepared. The proposed action discussed in this document is not substantially different from the 2006 actions, and a reference search has indicated that no significant new scientific information or analyses have been developed that would warrant new NEPA documentation. NMFS has prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact statement. Determinations For the reasons discussed in this document and in the identified supporting documents, NMFS has determined that the impact of the on-ice seismic R&D program would result, at worst, in the Level B harassment of small numbers of ringed seals, and that such taking will have no more than a negligible impact on this species. In addition, NMFS has determined that bearded and spotted seals, if present within the vicinity of the project area could also be taken incidentally, by no more than Level B harassment and that such taking would have a negligible impact on such species or stocks. Although there is not a specfic number assessed for the taking of bearded and spotted seals due to their rare occurrence in the project area, NMFS believes that any take would be significantly lower than those of ringed seals. NMFS also finds that the 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 an IHA to SOI for the potential Level B harassment of small number of ringed seals, and potential Level B harassment of bearded and spotted seals incidental to conducting on-ice seismic R&D program in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the 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. E7-6653 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 040307B] Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey in the Northeastern Indian Ocean, May-August 2007 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental take authorization; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from Scripps Institute of Oceanography
(SIO)for an Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA)to take marine mammals incidental to conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey in the northeastern Indian Ocean during May-August 2007. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to SIO to incidentally take, by Level B harassment only, several species of marine mammals during the aforementioned activity. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than May 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to 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. The mailbox address for providing email comments is PR1.040307B@noaa.gov. NMFS is not responsible for e-mail comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or visiting the internet at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications* . Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289, ext 166. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or
(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either approve or deny the authorization. Summary of Request On January 5, 2007, NMFS received an application from SIO for the taking, by Level B harassment only, of 32 species of marine mammals incidental to conducting, with research funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a low-energy marine seismic survey in the northeastern Indian Ocean from May-August 2007. The purpose of the research program is to conduct a scientific rock-dredging, magnetic, bathymetric, and seismic survey program at nine sites on the Ninety East Ridge in the northeastern Indian Ocean. The results will be used to
(1)determine the morphology, structure, and tectonics of ridge volcanoes to see whether they reflect centralized (plume) or distributed (crack) eruptions;
(2)infer the magmatic evolution of the ridge, whether it fits the plume hypothesis, and its connection to existing hotspots;
(3)examine the duration of volcanism at the various sites and along the ridge to see whether the age progression fits the simple plume model; and
(4)survey broad characteristics of subseafloor in order to refine the planning of the IODP drilling proposal. Included in the research planned for 2007 are scientific rock dredging at all nine sites, high-resolution seismic methods to image the subsea floor at five of the sites, and the use of a magnetometer, gravimeter, multi-beam sonar, and sub-bottom profiler throughout the cruise. Description of the Activity The seismic surveys will involve one vessel, the *R/V Roger Revelle* ( *Roger Revelle* ), which is scheduled to depart from Fremantle, Australia, between May 22 and June 19, 2007. The *Roger Revelle* will conduct the cruise in the Indian Ocean and arrive at Colombo, Sri Lanka, between July 16 and August 13, 2007. The exact dates of the activities may vary by a few days because of weather conditions, repositioning, streamer operations and adjustments, airgun deployment, or the need to repeat some lines if data quality is substandard. Additional seismic operations may be occasionally needed to investigate significant new findings as revealed by the other survey systems. The overall area within which the seismic surveys will occur is located between approximately 5° N. and 25° S., along approximately 90o E. (Figure 1 in the application), in the Indian Ocean. The surveys will be conducted entirely in International Waters. The *Roger Revelle* will deploy a pair of low-energy Generator-Injector
(GI)airguns as an energy source (each with a discharge volume of 45 in 3 ), plus a 800 m-long (2625-ft long), 48-channel, towed hydrophone. The program will consist of approximately 2700 km (1678 mi) of surveys, including turns. Water depths within the seismic survey areas are 1600-5100 m (1750-5577 yd). The GI guns will be operated on a small grid for approximately 49 hours at each of 5 sites over a approximately 50-day period during May-August 2007, commencing between May 22 and June 19. There will be additional seismic operations associated with equipment testing, start-up, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. In addition to the operations of the GI guns, a 3.5-kHz sub-bottom profiler , a Kongsberg-Simrad EM-120 multi-beam sonar, and a gravimeter will be used continuously throughout the cruise, and passive geophysical sensors will be deployed to conduct magnetic surveys at all times except during dredging. Vessel Specifications The *Roger Revelle* has a length of 83 m (272 ft), a beam of 16 m (52 ft), and a maximum draft of 5.2 m. The ship is powered by two 3,000 hp Propulsion General Electric motors and an 1180-hp Azimuthing jet bow thruster. An operation speed of 11.1 km/h (6 knots) is used during seismic acquisition. When not towing seismic survey gear, the *Roger Revelle* cruises at 22.2-23.1 km/h (12-12.5 knots) and has a maximum speed of 27.8 km/h (15 knots). It has a normal operating range of approximately 27,780 km (17,262 mi). Acoustic Source Specifications Seismic Airguns The vessel *Roger Revelle* will tow a pair of GI airguns and an 800 m-long (2624-ft), 48-channel hydrophone streamer. Seismic pulses will be emitted at intervals of 6-10 seconds, which corresponds to a shot interval of approximatley 18.5-31 m (61-102 ft) (at a speed of 6 knots (11.1 km/h). The generator chamber of each GI gun, the one responsible for introducing the sound pulse into the ocean, is 45 in 3 (total air discharge approximately 90 in 3 ). The larger (105 in 3 ) injector chamber injects air into the previously-generated bubble to maintain its shape, and does not introduce more sound into the water. The two 45 in 3 GI guns will be towed 8 m (26 ft) apart side by side, 21 m (69 ft) behind the *Roger Revelle* , at a depth of 2 m (6.6 ft). The dominant frequency components are 0-188 Hz. The sound pressure field of that GI gun variation has not been modeled, but that for two 45 in 3 Nucleus G guns (which actually have more energy than GI guns of the same size) has been modeled by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) in relation to distance and direction from the airguns. This source, which is directed downward, was found to have an output (0-peak) of 230.6 dB re 1 μPa m. The nominal downward-directed source levels indicated above do not represent actual sound levels that can be measured at any location in the water. Rather, they represent the level that would be found 1 m from a hypothetical point source emitting the same total amount of sound as is emitted by the combined GI guns. The actual received level at any location in the water near the GI guns will not exceed the source level of the strongest individual source. In this case, that will be about 224.6 dB re 1 μPa-m peak, or 229.8 dB re 1 μPa-m peak-to-peak. Actual levels experienced by any organism more than 1 m from either GI gun will be significantly lower. A further consideration is that the rms (root mean square) received levels that are used as impact criteria for marine mammals are not directly comparable to the peak or peak to peak values normally used to characterize source levels of airgun arrays. The measurement units used to describe airgun sources, peak or peak-to-peak decibels, are always higher than the “root mean square”
(rms)decibels referred to in biological literature. A measured received level of 160 dB rms in the far field would typically correspond to a peak measurement of approximately 170 to 172 dB, and to a peak-to-peak measurement of approximately 176 to 178 dB, as measured for the same pulse received at the same location (Greene 1997; McCauley *et al.* , 1998, 2000). The precise difference between rms and peak or peak-to-peak values depends on the frequency content and duration of the pulse, among other factors. However, the rms level is always lower than the peak or peak-to-peak level for an airgun-type source. Bathymetric Sonar The *Roger Revelle* will utilize the Kongsberg-Simrad EM120 multi-beam sonar, which operates at 11.25-12.6 kHz and is mounted in the hull. It operates in several modes, depending on water depth. In the proposed survey, it will be used in deep (>800-m (2625 ft)) water, and will operate in “Deep” mode. The beam width is 1° or 2° fore-aft and a total of 150° athwartship. Estimated maximum source levels are 239 and 233 dB at 1° and 2° beam widths, respectively. Each “ping” consists of nine successive fan-shaped transmissions, each ensonifying a sector that extends 1° or 2° fore-aft. In the “Deep” mode, the total duration of the transmission into each sector is 15 ms. The nine successive transmissions span an overall cross-track angular extent of about 150 degrees, with 16 ms gaps between the pulses for successive sectors. A receiver in the overlap area between two sectors would receive two 15-ms pulses separated by a 16-ms gap. The “ping” interval varies with water depth, from approximately 5 s at 1000 m (3280 ft) to 20 s at 4000 m (13120 ft). Sub-bottom Profiler The *Roger Revelle* will utilize the Knudsen Engineering Model 320BR sub-bottom profiler, which is a dual-frequency transceiver designed to operate at 3.5 and/or 12 kHz. It is used in conjunction with the multi-beam sonar to provide data about the sedimentary features that occur below the sea floor. The energy from the sub-bottom profiler is directed downward (in an 80-degree cone) via a 3.5-kHz transducer array mounted in the hull. The maximum power output of the 320BR is 10 kilowatts for the 3.5-kHz section and 2 kilowatts for the 12-kHz section. (The 12-kHz section is seldom used in survey mode on *Roger Revelle* because of overlap with the operating frequency of the Kongsberg Simrad EM-120 multi-beam sonar.) The pulse length for the 3.5 kHz section of the 320BR is 0.8-24 ms, controlled by the system operator in regards to water depth and reflectivity of the bottom sediments, and will usually be 12 or 24 ms in this survey. The system produces one sound pulse and then waits for its return before transmitting again. Thus, the pulse interval is directly dependent upon water depth, and in this survey is 4.5-8 sec. Using the Sonar Equations and assuming 100 percent efficiency in the system (impractical in real world applications), the source level for the 320BR is calculated to be 211 dB re 1 μPa-m. In practice, the system is rarely operated above 80 percent power level. Safety Radii NMFS has determined that for acoustic effects, using acoustic thresholds in combination with corresponding safety radii is the most effective way to consistently apply measures to avoid or minimize the impacts of an action, and to quantitatively estimate the effects of an action. Thresholds are used in two ways:
(1)to establish a mitigation shut-down or power down zone, i.e., if an animal enters an area calculated to be ensonified above the level of an established threshold, a sound source is powered down or shut down; and
(2)to calculate take, in that a model may be used to calculate the area around the sound source that will be ensonified to that level or above, then, based on the estimated density of animals and the distance that the sound source moves, NMFS can estimate the number of marine mammals that may be “taken”. NMFS believes that to avoid permanent physiological damage (Level A Harassment), cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding, respectively, 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). NMFS also assumes that cetaceans or pinnipeds exposed to levels exceeding 160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)may experience Level B Harassment. Received sound levels have been modeled by L-DEO for a number of airgun configurations, including two 45-in 3 Nucleus G-guns, in relation to distance and direction from the airguns. The model does not allow for bottom interactions, and is most directly applicable to deep water. Based on the modeling, estimates of the maximum distances from the GI guns where sound levels of 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)are predicted to be received in deep (>1000-m (3280-ft)) water are 10, 40, and 400 m (33, 131, and 1312 ft), respectively. Because the model results are for G guns, which have more energy than GI guns of the same size, those distances are overestimates of the distances for the 45-in 3 GI guns. Empirical data concerning the 180- and 160- dB distances have been acquired based on measurements during the acoustic verification study conducted by L-DEO in the northern Gulf of Mexico from 27 May to 3 June 2003 (Tolstoy *et al.* , 2004). Although the results are limited, the data showed that radii around the airguns where the received level would be 180 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)vary with water depth. Similar depth-related variation is likely in the 190-dB distances applicable to pinnipeds. Correction factors were developed for water depths 100-1000 m (328-3280 ft) and <100 m (328 ft). The proposed survey will occur in depths 1600-5100 m (5249-16732 ft), so the correction factors are not relevant here. The empirical data indicate that, for deep water (>1000 m (3280 ft)), the L-DEO model tends to overestimate the received sound levels at a given distance (Tolstoy *et al.* , 2004). However, to be precautionary pending acquisition of additional empirical data, it is proposed that safety radii during airgun operations in deep water will be the values predicted by L-DEO's model (above). Therefore, the assumed 180- and 190-dB radii are 40 m and 10 m (131 and 33 ft), respectively. Airguns will be shut down immediately when cetaceans or pinnipeds are detected within or about to enter the appropriate 180-dB
(rms)or 190-dB
(rms)radius, respectively. Description of Marine Mammals in the Activity Area Thirty-two species of cetacean, including 25 odontocete (dolphins and small and large toothed whales) species and seven mysticete (baleen whales) species, are thought to occur in the proposed seismic survey areas along the Ninety East Ridge in the northeastern Indian Ocean (Table 1). Several are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
(ESA)as Endangered: the sperm whale, humpback whale, blue whale, fin whale, and sei whale. Although there have been several surveys of marine mammals in the Indian Ocean (e.g., Keller *et al.* , 1982; Leatherwood *et al.* , 1984; Eyre 1995; Baldwin *et al.* , 1998; de Boer 2000; de Boer *et al.* , 2003), data on the occurrence, distribution, and abundance of odontocetes and mysticetes in the northeastern Indian Ocean, encompassing the proposed seismic survey area along the Ninety East Ridge, are limited or lacking. Commercial whaling severely depleted all the large whale populations in this region, and subsequently, in 1979, the International Whaling Commission declared the Indian Ocean north of 55° S. latitude a whale sanctuary. The majority of recent detailed information on whales within the Indian Ocean Sanctuary
(IOS)comes from
(1)A United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP)Report summarizing cetacean research in the western IOS (Leatherwood and Donovan 1991);
(2)A compilation of sightings for the entire IOS produced by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (de Boer *et al.* , 2003); and
(3)A review of marine mammals records in India (Sathasivam 2004); and
(4)A series of research cruises within the IOS (Keller *et al.* , 1982; Leatherwood *et al.* , 1984; Corbett 1994; Eyre 1995; Ballance and Pitman 1998; de Boer 2000). Because the proposed survey area spans such a wide range of latitudes (approximately 5° N.-25° S.), tropical and temperate species are found there. The survey area is all in deep-water habitat but is close to oceanic island habitats (i.e., Andaman, Nicobar, and Cocos (Keeling) Islands), so both coastal and oceanic species might be encountered, although species that stay in very shallow water (e.g., Indian hump-backed dolphin, Irrawaddy dolphin, and finless porpoise) would not. Abundance and density estimates of cetaceans found in areas other than the northeastern and central Indian Ocean are provided for reference only, and are not necessarily the same as those in the survey area. Table 1 also shows the estimated abundance of the marine mammals likely to be encountered during the *Roger Revelle* 's cruise. Additional information regarding the distribution of these species and how the estimated densities were calculated may be found in SIO's application. Species Habitat Occurrence Rqstd Take Mysticetes Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)* Mainly nearshore waters and banks Common 5(0)** Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Pelagic and coastal Uncommon 5 Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) Coastal and oceanic Uncommon 5 Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni) Pelagic and coastal Very common 5 Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) * Primarily offshore, pelagic Uncommon 5(0)** Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)* Continental slope, mostly pelagic Common 5(0)** Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)* Pelagic and coastal Very common 5(1)** Odontocetes Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)* Usually pelagic and deep seas Common 5(1)** Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) Deep waters off the shelf Common 5 Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) Deep waters off the shelf Common 5 Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) Pelagic Common 5 Shepherd's beaked whale (Tasmacetus shepherdi)) Pelagic Rare 5 Longman's beaked whale (Indopacetus pacificus) Pelagic Common? 1 Southern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon planifrons) Pelagic Uncommon 5 True's beaked whale (Mesoplodon mirus) Pelagic Rare 5 Gray's beaked whale (Mesoplodon grayi) Pelagic Uncommon 5 Ginkgo-toothed whale (Mesoplodon ginkgodens) Pelagic Common 5 Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) Pelagic Very common 5 Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) Deep water Uncommon 69 Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Coastal and oceanic, shelf break Common 129 Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) Coastal and pelagic Uncommon 65 Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) Coastal and pelagic Abundant 215 Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) Off continental shelf Common 86 Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) Waters >1000 m Rare 22 Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) Shelf and pelagic, seamounts Very common 151 Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) Waters >1000 m, seamounts Very common 151 Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) Oceanic Very common 50 Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) Deep, pantropical waters Common 25 False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) Pelagic Common 15 Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Widely distributed Common 5 Long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) Mostly pelagic Rare 30 Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) Mostly pelagic, high-relief topography Very common 15 Table 1. Species expected to be encountered (and potentially harassed) during SIO's Indian Ocean cruise *Species are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act **Parenthetical numbers represent numbers of takes NMFS proposes to authorize (we may not authorize take of species, or take of numbers of species, that we are not exempted pursuant to our internal ESA consultation) Potential Effects on Marine Mammals Potential Effects of Airguns The effects of sounds from airguns might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). Given the small size of the GI guns planned for the present project, effects are anticipated to be considerably less than would be the case with a large array of airguns. It is very unlikely that there would be any cases of temporary or, especially, permanent hearing impairment. Also, behavioral disturbance is expected to be limited to relatively short distances. Tolerance Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from airguns are often readily detectable in the water at distances of many kilometers. For a summary of the characteristics of airgun pulses, see Appendix A of SIO's application. However, it should be noted that most of the measurements of airgun sounds that have been reported concerned sounds from larger arrays of airguns, whose sounds would be detectable considerably farther away than the GI guns planned for use in the present project. Numerous studies have shown that marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers from operating seismic vessels often show no apparent response-see Appendix A
(e)of SIO's application. That is often true even in cases when the pulsed sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal group. Although various baleen whales, toothed whales, and (less frequently) pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally to airgun pulses under some conditions, at other times mammals of all three types have shown no overt reactions. In general, pinnipeds and small odontocetes seem to be more tolerant of exposure to airgun pulses than are baleen whales. Given the relatively small and low-energy airgun source planned for use in this project, mammals (and sea turtles) are expected to tolerate being closer to this source than might be the case for a larger airgun source typical of most seismic surveys. Masking Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are very few specific data on this. Some whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses. Their calls can be heard between the seismic pulses (e.g., Richardson *et al.* , 1986; McDonald *et al.* , 1995; Greene *et al.* , 1999; Nieukirk *et al.* , 2004). Although there has been one report that sperm whales cease calling when exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship (Bowles *et al.* , 1994), a recent study reports that sperm whales off northern Norway continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses (Madsen *et al.* , 2002c). That has also been shown during recent work in the Gulf of Mexico (Tyack *et al.* , 2003). Given the small source planned for use here, there is even less potential for masking of baleen or sperm whale calls during the present study than in most seismic surveys. Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be negligible in the case of the smaller odontocete cetaceans, given the intermittent nature of seismic pulses and the relatively low source level of the airguns to be used here. Also, the sounds important to small odontocetes are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are airgun sounds. Masking effects, in general, are discussed further in Appendix A
(d)of SIO's application. Disturbance Reactions Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement. Disturbance is one of the main concerns in this project. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors. If a marine mammal responds to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the response may or may not rise to the level of harassment, let alone affect the stock or the species as a whole. Alternatively, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area, effects on the stock or species could potentially be more than negligible. Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of noise on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many mammals are likely to be present within a particular distance of industrial activities, or exposed to a particular level of industrial sound. This practice potentially overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that are affected in some biologically important manner. The sound criteria used to estimate how many marine mammals might be disturbed to some biologically-important degree by a seismic program are based on behavioral observations during studies of several species. However, information is lacking for many species. Detailed studies have been done on humpback, gray, and bowhead whales, and on ringed seals. Less detailed data are available for some other species of baleen whales, sperm whales, and small toothed whales. Most of those studies have focused on the impacts resulting from the use of much larger airgun sources than those planned for use in the present project. Thus, effects are expected to be limited to considerably smaller distances and shorter periods of exposure in the present project than in most of the previous work concerning marine mammal reactions to airguns. *Baleen Whales* - Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating airguns, but avoidance radii are quite variable. Whales are often reported to show no overt reactions to pulses from large arrays of airguns at distances beyond a few kilometers, even though the airgun pulses remain well above ambient noise levels out to much longer distances. However, as reviewed in Appendix A
(e)of SIO's application, baleen whales exposed to strong noise pulses from airguns often react by deviating from their normal migration route and/or interrupting their feeding activities and moving away from the sound source. In the case of the migrating gray and bowhead whales, the observed changes in behavior appeared to be of little or no biological consequence to the animals. They simply avoided the sound source by displacing their migration route to varying degrees, but within the natural boundaries of the migration corridors. Studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have determined that received levels of pulses in the 160-170 dB re 1 μPa rms range seem to cause obvious avoidance behavior in a substantial fraction of the animals exposed. In many areas, seismic pulses from large arrays of airguns diminish to those levels at distances ranging from 4.5-14.5 km (2.8-9 mi) from the source. A substantial proportion of the baleen whales within those distances may show avoidance or other strong disturbance reactions to the airgun array. Subtle behavioral changes sometimes become evident at somewhat lower received levels, and recent studies, reviewed in Appendix A
(e)of SIO's application, have shown that some species of baleen whales, notably bowheads and humpbacks, at times show strong avoidance at received levels lower than 160-170 dB re 1 μPa rms. Reaction distances would be considerably smaller during the present project, in which the 160-dB radius is predicted to be approximately 0.40 km (0.9 mi), as compared with several kilometers when a large array of airguns is operating. Humpback whales summering in southeast Alaska did not exhibit persistent avoidance when exposed to seismic pulses from a 1.64-L (100 in 3 ) airgun (Malme *et al.* , 1985). Some humpbacks seemed “startled” at received levels of 150-169 dB re 1 μPa on an approximate rms basis. Malme *et al.*
(1985)concluded that there was no clear evidence of avoidance, despite the possibility of subtle effects, at received levels up to 172 re 1 μPa (approximately rms). More detailed information on responses of humpback whales to seismic pulses during studies in Australia can be found in Appendix A
(a)of SIO's application. Malme *et al.* (1986, 1988) studied the responses of feeding eastern gray whales to pulses from a single 100 in3 airgun off St. Lawrence Island in the northern Bering Sea. They estimated, based on small sample sizes, that 50 percent of feeding gray whales ceased feeding at an average received pressure level of 173 dB re 1 μPa on an (approximate) rms basis, and that 10 percent of feeding whales interrupted feeding at received levels of 163 dB. Those findings were generally consistent with the results of experiments conducted on larger numbers of gray whales that were migrating along the California coast. Data on short-term reactions (or lack of reactions) of cetaceans to impulsive noises do not necessarily provide information about long-term effects. It is not known whether impulsive noises affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use in subsequent days or years. However, gray whales continued to migrate annually along the west coast of North America despite intermittent seismic exploration and much ship traffic in that area for decades (Appendix A in Malme *et al.* , 1984). Bowhead whales continued to travel to the eastern Beaufort Sea each summer despite seismic exploration in their summer and autumn range for many years (Richardson *et al.* , 1987). In any event, the brief exposures to sound pulses from the present small airgun source are highly unlikely to result in prolonged effects. *Toothed Whales* - Little systematic information is available about reactions of toothed whales to noise pulses. Few studies similar to the more extensive baleen whale/seismic pulse work summarized above have been reported for toothed whales. However, systematic work on sperm whales is underway (Tyack *et al.* , 2003). Seismic operators sometimes see dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, but in general there seems to be a tendency for most delphinids to show some limited avoidance of seismic vessels operating large airgun systems. However, some dolphins seem to be attracted to the seismic vessel and floats, and some ride the bow wave of the seismic vessel even when large arrays of airguns are firing. Nonetheless, there have been indications that small toothed whales sometimes tend to head away, or to maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel, when a large array of airguns is operating than when it is silent (e.g., Goold, 1996; Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003). Similarly, captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibit changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys (Finneran *et al.* , 2000, 2002). However, the animals tolerated high received levels of sound (pk-pk level >200 dB re 1 μPa) before exhibiting aversive behaviors. With the presently-planned small airgun system, such levels would only be found within a few meters of the airguns. There are no specific data on the behavioral reactions of beaked whales to seismic surveys. A few beaked whale sightings have been reported from seismic vessels (Stone, 2003), however, based on limited observations most beaked whales tend to avoid approaching vessels of other types (e.g., Kasuya, 1986; Wursig *et al.* , 1998). Several beaked whale strandings have been associated with naval mid-frequency sonar exercises, however, the sounds produced by seismic airguns are quite different from tactical sonar (see Appendix A
(g)of SIO's application). The strandings mentioned above are apparently at least in part a disturbance response, although auditory or other injuries may also be a factor. Whether beaked whales would ever react similarly to seismic surveys is unknown (see “Strandings and Mortality”, below). Sperm whales have been reported to show avoidance reactions to standard vessels not emitting airgun sounds, and it is to be expected that they would tend to avoid an operating seismic survey vessel. There were some limited early observations suggesting that sperm whales in the Southern Ocean and Gulf of Mexico might be fairly sensitive to airgun sounds from distant seismic surveys. However, more extensive data from recent studies in the North Atlantic suggest that sperm whales in those areas show little evidence of avoidance or behavioral disruption in the presence of operating seismic vessels (McCall Howard, 1999; Madsen *et al.* , 2002c; Stone, 2003). Odontocete reactions to large arrays of airguns are variable and, at least for small odontocetes, seem to be confined to a smaller radius than has been observed for mysticetes. Thus, behavioral reactions of odontocetes to the small airgun source to be used here are expected to be very localized, probably to distances <0.40 km (.25 mi). *Pinnipeds* - Pinnipeds are not likely to show a strong avoidance reaction to the small airgun source that will be used. Visual monitoring from seismic vessels, usually employing larger sources, has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds, and only slight (if any) changes in behavior-see Appendix A
(e)of SIO's application. Those studies show that pinnipeds frequently do not avoid the area within a few hundred meters of operating airgun arrays, even for arrays much larger than the one to be used here (e.g., Harris *et al.* , 2001). However, initial telemetry work suggests that avoidance and other behavioral reactions to small airgun sources may be stronger than evident to date from visual studies of pinniped reactions to airguns (Thompson *et al.* , 1998). Even if reactions of the species occurring in the present study area are as strong as those evident in the telemetry study, reactions are expected to be confined to relatively small distances and durations, with no long-term effects on pinnipeds. Additional details on the behavioral reactions (or the lack thereof) by all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels can be found in Appendix A
(e)of SIO's application. Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects Temporary or permanent hearing impairment is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very strong sounds, but there has been no specific documentation of this for marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses. Current NMFS policy regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-level sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive sounds of 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms), respectively. Those criteria have been used in defining the safety (shut-down) radii planned for the proposed seismic survey. The precautionary nature of these criteria is discussed in Appendix A
(f)of SIO's application, including the fact that the minimum sound level necessary to cause permanent hearing impairment is higher, by a variable and generally unknown amount, than the level that induces barely-detectable temporary threshold shift
(TTS)(which NMFS' criteria are based on) and the level associated with the onset of TTS is often considered to be a level below which there is no danger of permanent damage. NMFS is presently developing new noise exposure criteria for marine mammals that take account of the now-available data on TTS in marine (and terrestrial) mammals. Because of the small size of the airgun source in this project (two 45-in 3 GI guns), along with the planned monitoring and mitigation measures, there is little likelihood that any marine mammals will be exposed to sounds sufficiently strong to cause hearing impairment. Several aspects of the planned monitoring and mitigation measures for this project are designed to detect marine mammals occurring near the two GI airguns (and multi-beam bathymetric sonar), and to avoid exposing them to sound pulses that might, at least in theory, cause hearing impairment. In addition, many cetaceans are likely to show some avoidance of the area with high received levels of airgun sound (see above). In those cases, the avoidance responses of the animals themselves will reduce or (most likely) avoid any possibility of hearing impairment. Non-auditory physical effects may also occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in mammals close to a strong sound source include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. It is possible that some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked whales) may be especially susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to strong pulsed sounds. However, as discussed below, there is no definitive evidence that any of these effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large arrays of airguns. It is especially unlikely that any effects of these types would occur during the present project given the small size of the source, the brief duration of exposure of any given mammal, and the planned monitoring and mitigation measures (see below). The following subsections discuss in somewhat more detail the possibilities of TTS, permanent threshold shift (PTS), and non-auditory physical effects. *Temporary Threshold Shift*
(TTS)- TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the noise ends. Only a few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound. For toothed whales exposed to single short pulses, the TTS threshold appears to be, to a first approximation, a function of the energy content of the pulse (Finneran *et al.* , 2002). Given the available data, the received level of a single seismic pulse might need to be approximately 210 dB re 1 μPa rms (approximately 221-226 dB pk-pk) in order to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several seismic pulses at received levels near 200-205 dB
(rms)might result in slight TTS in a small odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold is (to a first approximation) a function of the total received pulse energy. Seismic pulses with received levels of 200-205 dB or more are usually restricted to a radius of no more than 100 m (328 ft) around a seismic vessel operating a large array of airguns. Such levels would be limited to distances within a few meters of the small GI-gun source to be used in this project. For baleen whales, there are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to induce TTS. However, no cases of TTS are expected given the small size of the source, and, as mentioned previously, there is a strong likelihood that baleen whales would avoid the approaching GI gun (or vessel), with the sound source operating, before being exposed to levels high enough for there to be any possibility of TTS. In pinnipeds, TTS thresholds associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of underwater sound have not been measured. Initial evidence from prolonged exposures suggested that some pinnipeds may incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations (Kastak *et al.* , 1999; Ketten *et al.* , 2001; cf. Au *et al.* , 2000). However, more recent indications are that TTS onset in the most sensitive pinniped species studied (harbor seal) may occur at a similar sound exposure level as in odontocetes (Kastak *et al.* , 2004). A marine mammal within a radius of 100 m (328 ft) around a typical large array of operating airguns might be exposed to a few seismic pulses with levels of 205 dB, and possibly more pulses if the mammal moved with the seismic vessel. (As noted above, most cetacean species tend to avoid operating airguns, although not all individuals do so.) In addition, ramping up airgun arrays, which is standard operational protocol for large airgun arrays, provides an opportunity for cetaceans to move away from the seismic source and to avoid being exposed to the full acoustic output of the airgun array. However, several of the considerations that are relevant in assessing the impact of typical seismic surveys with arrays of airguns are not directly applicable here:
(1)The planned GI gun source is much smaller, with correspondingly smaller radii within which received sound levels could exceed any particular level of concern.
(2)With a large airgun array, it is unlikely that cetaceans would be exposed to airgun pulses at a sufficiently high level for a sufficiently long period to cause more than mild TTS, given the relative movement of the vessel and the marine mammal. In this project, the gun source is much smaller, so the radius of influence and duration of exposure to strong pulses is much smaller, especially in deep and intermediate-depth water.
(3)With a large array of airguns, TTS would be most likely in any odontocetes that bow-ride or otherwise linger near the airguns. In the present project, the anticipated 180-dB distance in deep water is 40 m (131 ft), and the waterline at the bow of the *Roger Revelle* will be approximately 97 m (318 ft) ahead of the GI gun. To avoid injury, NMFS has determined that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding, respectively, 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The predicted 180- and 190-dB distances for the GI guns operated by SIO are 40 m (131 ft) and 10 m (33 ft), respectively, in water depths >1000 m (3280 ft). [Those distances actually apply to operations with two 45-in 3 G guns, and smaller distances would be expected for the two 45-in 3 GI guns to be used here.] These sound levels are the received levels above which, in the view of a panel of bioacoustics specialists convened by NMFS, one cannot be certain that there will be no injurious effects, auditory or otherwise, to marine mammals. More recent TTS data imply that, at least for dolphins, TTS is unlikely to occur unless the dolphins are exposed to airgun pulses notably stronger than 180 dB re 1 μPa rms. However NMFS utilizes a precautionary approach of requiring shut down at received levels above which we cannot be certain there will be no injurious effects to the most sensitive species. *Permanent Threshold Shift*
(PTS)- When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In some cases, there can be total or partial deafness, while in other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges. There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large arrays of airguns. However, given the possibility that mammals close to an airgun array might incur TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage in terrestrial mammals. Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at a received sound level 20 dB or more above that inducing mild TTS if the animal were exposed to the strong sound for an extended period, or to a strong sound with rather rapid rise time-see Appendix A
(f)of SIO's application. It is highly unlikely that marine mammals could receive sounds strong enough to cause permanent hearing impairment during a project employing two 45-in 3 GI guns. In the present project, marine mammals are unlikely to be exposed to received levels of seismic pulses strong enough to cause TTS, as they would probably need to be within a few meters of the airguns for that to occur. Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS, it is even less likely that PTS could occur. In fact, even the levels immediately adjacent to the airguns may not be sufficient to induce PTS, especially since a mammal would not be exposed to more than one strong pulse unless it swam immediately alongside an airgun for a period longer than the inter-pulse interval (6-10 s). Baleen whales generally avoid the immediate area around operating seismic vessels. The planned monitoring and mitigation measures, including visual monitoring, ramp ups, and shut downs of the airguns when mammals are seen within the “safety radii”, will minimize the already-minimal probability of exposure of marine mammals to sounds strong enough to induce PTS. *Non-auditory Physiological Effects* - Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. There is no evidence that any of these effects occur in marine mammals exposed to sound from airgun arrays (even large ones) and there have been no direct studies of the potential for airgun pulses to elicit any of those effects. NMFS does not anticipate that marine mammals would experience any of these effects in response to being exposed to the airguns in this proposed study, especially considering the small size of the airguns. If any such effects do occur, they would probably be limited to unusual situations when animals might be exposed at close range for unusually long periods. Exposure of laboratory animals, wildlife, and humans to strong noise often results in significant increases in adrenal activity, including cortisol and/or catecholamine release and related measures of stress (see Appendix A of SIO's application). However, it is doubtful that any single marine mammal would be exposed to strong seismic sounds for sufficiently long that significant physiological stress would develop. That is especially so in the case of the present project where the airguns are small, the ship's speed is relatively fast (5-8 knots or 9.3-14.8 km/h), and each survey does not encompass a large area. Gas-filled structures in marine animals have an inherent fundamental resonance frequency. If stimulated at that frequency, the ensuing resonance could cause damage to the animal. A workshop (Gentry [ed.] 2002) was held to discuss whether the stranding of beaked whales in the Bahamas in 2000 (Balcomb and Claridge, 2001; NOAA and USN, 2001) might have been related to air cavity resonance or bubble formation in tissues caused by exposure to noise from naval sonar. A panel of experts concluded that resonance in air-filled structures was not likely to have caused this stranding. Opinions were less conclusive about the possible role of gas (nitrogen) bubble formation/growth in the Bahamas stranding of beaked whales. Until recently, it was assumed that diving marine mammals are not subject to the bends or air embolism. However, a short paper concerning beaked whales stranded in the Canary Islands in 2002 suggests that cetaceans might be subject to decompression injury in some situations (Jepson *et al.* , 2003). If so, that might occur if they ascend quickly when exposed to aversive sounds. However, the interpretation that the effect was related to decompression injury is unproven (Piantadosi and Thalmann 2004; Fernandez *et al.* , 2004). Even if that effect can occur during exposure to mid-frequency sonar, there is no evidence that this type of effect occurs in response to airgun sounds. It is especially unlikely in the case of the proposed survey, involving only two GI guns. In general, little is known about the potential for seismic survey sounds to cause auditory impairment or other physical effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all, would be limited to short distances and probably to projects involving large arrays of airguns. However, the available data do not allow for meaningful quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be affected in those ways. Marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance of seismic vessels, including most baleen whales, some odontocetes, and some pinnipeds, are especially unlikely to incur auditory impairment or other physical effects. Also, the planned mitigation measures, including ramp ups and shut downs, will reduce any such effects that might otherwise occur. Strandings and Mortality Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosives can be killed or severely injured, and their auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten *et al.* , 1993; Ketten 1995). Airgun pulses are less energetic and have slower rise times, and there is no proof that they can cause serious injury, death, or stranding even in the case of large airgun arrays. However, the association of several strandings of beaked whales with naval exercises and, in one case, an L-DEO seismic survey, has raised the possibility that beaked whales exposed to strong pulsed sounds may be especially susceptible to injury and/or behavioral reactions that can lead to stranding. Appendix A
(g)of SIO's application provides additional details. Seismic pulses and mid-frequency sonar pulses are quite different. Sounds produced by airgun arrays are broadband with most of the energy below 1 kHz. Typical military mid-frequency sonars operate at frequencies of 2-10 kHz, generally with a relatively narrow bandwidth at any one time. Thus, it is not appropriate to assume that there is a direct connection between the effects of military sonar and seismic surveys on marine mammals. However, evidence that sonar pulses can, in special circumstances, lead to physical damage and mortality (NOAA and USN 2001; Jepson *et al.* , 2003), even if only indirectly, suggests that caution is warranted when dealing with exposure of marine mammals to any high-intensity pulsed sound. In May 1996, 12 Cuvier's beaked whales stranded along the coasts of Kyparissiakos Gulf in the Mediterranean Sea. That stranding was subsequently linked to the use of low- and medium-frequency active sonar by a North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO)research vessel in the region (Frantzis 1998). In March 2000, a population of Cuvier's beaked whales being studied in the Bahamas disappeared after a U.S. Navy task force using mid-frequency tactical sonars passed through the area; some beaked whales stranded (Balcomb and Claridge, 2001; NOAA and USN, 2001). In September 2002, a total of 14 beaked whales of various species stranded coincident with naval exercises in the Canary Islands (Martel n.d.; Jepson *et al.* , 2003; Fernandez *et al.* , 2003). Also in Sept. 2002, there was a stranding of two Cuvier's beaked whales in the Gulf of California, Mexico, when the L-DEO vessel *Maurice Ewing* was operating a 20-gun, 8490-in 3 array in the general area. The link between the stranding and the seismic surveys was inconclusive and not based on any physical evidence (Hogarth, 2002; Yoder, 2002). Nonetheless, that plus the incidents involving beaked whale strandings near naval exercises suggests a need for caution in conducting seismic surveys in areas occupied by beaked whales. The present project will involve a much smaller sound source than used in typical seismic surveys. That, along with the monitoring and mitigation measures that are planned, are expected to minimize any possibility for strandings and mortality. Potential Effects of Other Acoustic Devices Bathymetric Sonar Signals A multi-beam bathymetric sonar (Simrad EM120, 11.25-12.6 kHz) will be operated from the source vessel during much of the planned study. Sounds from the multi-beam sonar are very short pulses. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by the multi-beam is at moderately high frequencies, centered at 12 kHz. The beam is narrow (1° or 2°) in fore-aft extent, and wide (150°) in the cross-track extent. Each ping consists of nine successive transmissions (segments) at different cross-track angles. Any given mammal at depth near the track line would be in the main beam for only a fraction of a second. Tactical Navy sonars that have been linked to avoidance reactions and stranding of cetaceans
(1)generally are more powerful than the Simrad EM120,
(2)have a longer pulse duration, and
(3)are directed close to omnidirectionally, vs. downward for the Simrad EM120. The area of possible influence of the Simrad EM120 is a much smaller narrow band oriented in the cross-track direction below the source vessel. Marine mammals that encounter the Simrad EM120 at close range are unlikely to be subjected to repeated pulses because of the narrow fore-aft width of the beam, and will receive only limited amounts of pulse energy because of the short pulses. In assessing the possible impacts of the 15.5 kHz Atlas Hydrosweep (a similar model), Boebel *et al.*
(2004)noted that the critical sound pressure level at which TTS may occur is 203.2 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The critical region included an area of 43 m (141 ft) in depth, 46 m (151 ft) wide athwartship, and 1 m (3.3 ft) fore-and-aft (Boebel *et al.* , 2004). Behavioral reactions of free-ranging marine mammals to military and other sonars appear to vary by species and circumstance. Observed reactions have included silencing and dispersal by sperm whales (Watkins *et al.* , 1985), increased vocalizations and no dispersal by pilot whales (Rendell and Gordon, 1999), and the previously-mentioned beachings by beaked whales. However, all of those observations are of limited relevance to the present situation. Pulse durations from those sonars were much longer than those of the SIO multi-beam sonar, and a given mammal would have received many pulses from the naval sonars. During SIO's operations, the individual pulses will be very short, and a given mammal would not receive many of the downward-directed pulses as the vessel passes by. Captive bottlenose dolphins and a white whale exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to 1 s pulsed sounds at frequencies similar to those that will be emitted by the multi-beam sonar used by SIO, and to shorter broadband pulsed signals. Behavioral changes typically involved what appeared to be deliberate attempts to avoid the sound exposure (Schlundt *et al.* , 2000; Finneran *et al.* , 2002). The relevance of those data to free-ranging odontocetes is uncertain, and in any case, the test sounds were quite different in either duration or bandwidth as compared with those from a bathymetric sonar. Because of the shape of the beam, NMFS believes it unlikely that marine mammals will be exposed to the bathymetric sonar at levels at or above those likely to cause harassment. Further, NMFS believes that the brief exposure of cetaceans or pinnipeds to one pulse, or small numbers of signals, from the multi-beam bathymetric sonar system are not likely to result in the harassment of marine mammals. Sub-bottom Profiler Signals A sub-bottom profiler will be operated from the source vessel at all times during the planned study. Sounds from the sub-bottom profiler are very short pulses, occurring for 12 or 24 ms once every 4.5-8 seconds. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by this sub-bottom profiler is at mid frequencies, centered at 3.5 kHz. The beam width is approximately 80o (cone-shaped) and is directed downward. The sub-bottom profiler on the *Roger Revelle* has a stated maximum source level of 211 dB re 1 μPa m (see section I of SIO's application). Thus, the received level would be expected to decrease to 180 dB and 160 dB approximately 35 m and 350 m below the transducer, respectively, assuming spherical spreading. Corresponding distances in the horizontal plane would be substantially lower, given the directionality of this source. Marine mammal behavioral reactions to other pulsed sound sources are discussed above, and responses to the sub-bottom profiler are likely to be similar to those for other pulsed sources if received at the same levels. However, the pulsed signals from the sub-bottom profiler are weaker than those from both the multi-beam sonar and the two GI guns. Behavioral responses are not expected unless marine mammals are very close to the source, e.g., within approximately 350 m below the vessel, or a lesser distance to the side. It is unlikely that the sub-bottom profiler produces pulse levels strong enough to cause hearing impairment or other physical injuries even in an animal that is (briefly) in a position near the source. The sub-bottom profiler is usually operated simultaneously with other higher-power acoustic sources. Many marine mammals will move away in response to the approaching higher-power sources or the vessel itself before the mammals would be close enough for there to be any possibility of effects from the less intense sounds from the sub-bottom profiler. In the case of mammals that do not avoid the approaching vessel and its various sound sources, mitigation measures that would be applied to minimize effects of the higher-power sources would further reduce or eliminate any minor effects of the sub-bottom profiler. Because of the shape of the conical beam and the power of the source, NMFS believes it unlikely that marine mammals will be exposed to the bathymetric sonar at levels at or above those likely to cause harassment. Further, NMFS believes that the brief exposure of cetaceans or pinnipeds to small numbers of signals from the multi-beam bathymetric sonar system are not likely to result in the harassment of marine mammals. Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment All anticipated takes would be “takes by harassment”, involving temporary changes in behavior. The proposed mitigation measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious takes. (However, as noted earlier, there is no specific information demonstrating that injurious “takes” would occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation measures.) In the sections below, we describe methods to estimate “take by harassment”, and present estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that might be affected during the proposed seismic survey in the northeast Indian Ocean. The estimates are based on the best available data concerning marine mammal densities (numbers per unit area) and estimates of the size of the area where effects potentially could occur. Because there is very little information on marine mammal densities in the proposed survey area, densities were used from two of Longhurst's
(2007)biogeographic provinces in the ETP that are oceanographically similar to the two provinces in which the seismic activities will take place (see further, below). SIO's application presents two types of estimates: estimates of the number of potential “exposures”, and estimates of the number of different individual marine mammals that might potentially be exposed to sound levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The distinction between “exposures” and “number of different individuals exposed” is marginally relevant in this project, because the plan does not call for repeated GI gun operations through the same or adjacent waters, and the 2 GI guns that will be used ensonify a relatively small area. Estimates of the number of exposures are considered precautionary overestimates of the actual numbers of different individuals potentially exposed to seismic sounds, because in all likelihood, exposures represent repeated exposures of some of the same individuals as discussed in the sections that follow. Because of their precautionary nature, the fact that they are the numbers SIO requested authorization for, and the fact that they differ only slightly from the estimated number of individuals, NMFS will use the estimated number of exposures for the take estimate. The following estimates are based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that might be disturbed appreciably by operations with the 2 GI guns to be used during approximately 2700 line-km of surveys at five sites on the Ninety East Ridge in the northeastern Indian Ocean. The anticipated radii of influence of the multi-beam sonar and sub-bottom profiler are less than those for the GI guns. It is assumed that, during simultaneous operations of the multi-beam sonar and airguns, any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the sonar would already be affected by the airguns. No animals are expected to exhibit more than short-term and inconsequential responses to the multi-beam sonar and sub-bottom profiler, given their characteristics (e.g., narrow downward-directed beam) and other considerations described previously. Therefore, no additional allowance is included for animals that might be affected by those sources. Any effects of the multi-beam sonar and sub-bottom profiler during times when they are operating but the airguns are silent are not considered. Few systematic aircraft- or ship-based surveys have been conducted for marine mammals in offshore waters of the Indian Ocean, and the species of marine mammals that occur there are not well known. The density estimates used in this assessment are from two sources, as noted above. The most comprehensive and recent density data available for cetaceans of the ETP are from 1986 1996 NMFS ship surveys reported by Ferguson and Barlow (2001).
(1)Some of those waters are in Longhurst's
(2007)Pacific Equatorial Divergence Province (PEQD), which is similar to the Indian Monsoon Gyres Province (MONS), in which 3 of the 5 proposed seismic surveys in the northeastern Indian Ocean will occur. The similarities are that they are both high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll regions of the oceans that support relatively large populations of yellowfin, bigeye, and skipjack tuna. SIO used the 1986 1996 data from blocks 162-170, 202-209, and 213-216 of Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)for the species group density estimates given in Table 3 of SIO's application (and used to calculate the take estimates in Table 1 here).
(2)Some of the surveys conducted by Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)in the ETP are in Longhurst's
(2007)North Pacific Tropical Gyre Province (NPTG), which is similar to the Indian South Subtropical Gyre Province (ISSG), in which 2 of the 5 proposed seismic surveys will occur. The similarities are that they are both low-nitrate, low-chlorophyll regions of the oceans that support relatively large bigeye and yellowfin tuna populations. SIO used the 1986 1996 data from blocks 105, 106, 111, 112, and 125 131 of Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)to compute the species group densities in Table 4 of their application (and used to calculate the take estimates in Table 1 here). The species that will be encountered during the Indian Ocean survey will be different than those sighted during the surveys in the ETP. However, the overall abundance of species groups with generally similar habitat requirements are expected to be roughly similar. No density data were available for any cetacean species in the proposed seismic survey area. Thus, data from offshore areas of the ETP to estimate the densities of beaked whales, delphinids, small whales, and mysticetes in the northeastern Indian Ocean were used. SIO then estimated the relative abundance of individual species within the species groups on a scale of 1
(rare)to 10 (abundant) using various surveys and other information from areas near the study area, and general information on species such as latitudinal ranges, water depth preferences, and group sizes (see Column 1 in Tables 3 and 4 of SIO's application). Finally, SIO estimated the density of each species expected to occur in the survey area from the densities for species groups in Tables 3 and 4 of their application by multiplying their relative abundance/the relative abundance for all species in the species group times the density for the species group. Tables 3 and 4 in SIO's application give the average and maximum densities for each species group of marine mammals reported in the PEQD and NPTG provinces of the ETP, corrected for effort, based on the densities reported in Ferguson and Barlow (2001). The densities from those studies had been corrected, by the original authors, for both detectability bias and availability bias. Detectability bias is associated with diminishing sightability with increasing lateral distance from the track line [f(0)]. Availability bias refers to the fact that there is less-than 100 percent probability of sighting an animal that is present along the survey track line, and it is measured by g(0). It should be noted that the following estimates of “takes by harassment” assume that the seismic surveys will be undertaken and completed; in fact, the planned number of line-kms has been increased by 25 percent to accommodate lines that may need to be repeated, equipment testing, etc. As is typical on offshore ship surveys, inclement weather, equipment malfunctions, and other survey priorities (rock dredging, magnetic surveys) may cause delays and may limit the number of useful line-kms of seismic operations that can be undertaken. Furthermore, any marine mammal sightings within or near the designated safety zones will result in the shut down of seismic operations as a mitigation measure. Thus, the following estimates of the numbers of marine mammals potentially exposed to 160-dB sounds are precautionary, and probably overestimate the actual numbers of marine mammals that might be involved. The estimates assume that there are no conflicts in survey priorities or weather, equipment, or mitigation delays, which is unlikely, particularly given the complexity of the tasks and equipment involved. There is some uncertainty about the representativeness of the data and the assumptions used in the take calculations. However, the approach used here is believed to be the best available approach. Also, to provide some allowance for the uncertainties, “maximum estimates” as well as “best estimates” of the numbers potentially affected have been derived. Best and maximum estimates are based on the average and maximum estimates of densities reported in the selected datasets that were used from Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)described above. SIO has requested authorization for the take of the maximum estimates and NMFS has analyzed the maximum estimate for it's effect on the species or stock. The potential number of occasions when members of each species might be exposed to received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)was calculated by multiplying • Its expected density, either “average” (i.e., best) or “maximum”, corrected as described above, times • The anticipated total line-kilometers of operations with the 2 GI guns (including turns and additional buffer line km to allow for repeating of lines due to equipment malfunction, bad weather, etc.), times • The cross-track distances within which received sound levels are predicted to be ≥160 dB. For the 2 GI guns, that cross track distance is 2x the predicted 160-dB radii of 400 m (1312 ft) in water depths >1000 m (3280 ft). Based on that method, the “best” and “maximum” estimates of the number of marine mammal exposures to airgun sounds ≥160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)were obtained for each of the ecological provinces using the reported average and maximum densities from Tables 3 and 4 of SIO's application. The two estimates were then added to give totals. Of the five endangered cetacean species that could be present, the best and maximum estimates show that only one blue whale and one sperm whale may be exposed to such noise levels (Table 5 of SIO's application). The vast majority of the best and maximum exposures to seismic sounds ≥160 dB would involve delphinids. Maximum estimates of exposures for the species with the highest numbers are, in descending order, spinner dolphin (215 exposures), common and Risso's dolphins (151 exposures), and bottlenose dolphin (129 exposures). Estimates for other species are lower (Table 1). The far right column in Table 1, “Requested Take Authorization”, shows the numbers for which “take authorization” is requested. The requested take authorization numbers are calculated as indicated above based on the maximum densities reported by Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)in any of the survey blocks included in the average density estimates. For those species for which very low numbers to none are estimated to be exposed to seismic sounds ≥160 dB, SIO included allowance for encountering one group based on the mean group size. Where group sizes are less than five, SIO assigned a group size of five. However, for endangered species, NMFS only plans to authorize take for one sperm whale and one blue whale. The best and maximum estimates are based on 160-dB distances predicted from the acoustic model applied by L-DEO. Based on the empirical calibration data collected in the Gulf of Mexico in 2003 for L-DEO's 2 GI guns in deep water (510 m (1673 ft)), actual 160-dB distances in deep water are likely to be less than predicted (Tolstoy *et al.* , 2004). Additionally, the requested take is based on maximum exposure estimates (based on maximum density estimates). Given these considerations, the predicted numbers of marine mammals that might be exposed to sounds ≥160 dB may be somewhat overestimated. The stock structures of the marine mammals present in the Indian Ocean have not been identified by NMFS; therefore, NMFS must make the necessary findings based on the species as a whole. The species anticipated to be affected during the proposed activities are wide-ranging species. Though worldwide abundance (or abundance outside of that estimated for the U.S. stocks) has not been estimated, localized surveys in the west tropical Indian Ocean and elsewhere have been conducted. Since the take estimates proposed in this document fall largely within 6 percent (all but common dolphin (21 percent) and rough-toothed dolphin (14 percent)) of the numbers estimated to be present during a localized survey of the west tropical Indian Ocean, and the species range far beyond the Indian Ocean (i.e., the abundance of the species is notably larger), NMFS believes that the estimated take numbers for these are small relative both to the worldwide abundance of these species and to numbers taken in other activities that have been authorized for incidental take of these species. Potential Effects on Habitat The proposed airgun operations will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, or to the food sources they use. The main impact issue associated with the proposed activities will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as discussed above. One of the reasons for the adoption of airguns as the standard energy source for marine seismic surveys was that they (unlike the explosives used in the distant past) do not result in any appreciable fish kill. However, the existing body of information relating to the impacts of seismic on marine fish and invertebrate species is very limited. The various types of potential effects of exposure to seismic on fish and invertebrates can be considered in three categories:
(1)pathological,
(2)physiological, and
(3)behavioral. Pathological effects include lethal and sub-lethal damage to the animals, physiological effects include temporary primary and secondary stress responses, and behavioral effects refer to changes in exhibited behavior of the fish and invertebrates. The three categories are interrelated in complex ways. For example, it is possible that certain physiological and behavioral changes could potentially lead to the ultimate pathological effect on individual animals (i.e., mortality). The available information on the impacts of seismic surveys on marine fish and invertebrates provides limited insight on the effects only at the individual level. Ultimately, the most important knowledge in this area relates to how significantly seismic affects animal populations. The following sections provide an overview of the information that exists on the effects of seismic surveys on fish and invertebrates. The information comprises results from scientific studies of varying degrees of soundness and some anecdotal information. *Pathological Effects* - In water, acute injury and death of organisms exposed to seismic energy depends primarily on two features of the sound source:
(1)the received peak pressure, and
(2)the time required for the pressure to rise and decay (Hubbs and Rechnitzer, 1952 in Wardle *et al.* , 2001). Generally, the higher the received pressure and the less time it takes for the pressure to rise and decay, the greater the chance of acute pathological effects. Considering the peak pressure and rise/decay time characteristics of seismic airgun arrays used today, the pathological zone for fish and invertebrates would be expected to be within a few meters of the seismic source (Buchanan *et al.* , 2004). For the proposed survey, any injurious effects on fish would be limited to very short distances, especially considering the small source planned for use in this project (two 45-in 3 GI guns). Matishov
(1992)reported that some cod and plaice died within 48 hours of exposure to seismic pulses 2 m (6.5 ft) from the source. No other details were provided by the author. On the other hand, there are numerous examples of no fish mortality as a result of exposure to seismic sources (Falk and Lawrence 1973; Holliday *et al.* , 1987; La Bella *et al.* , 1996; Santulli *et al.* , 1999; McCauley *et al.* , 2000a, 2000b; Bjarti, 2002; IMG, 2002; McCauley *et al.* , 2003; Hassel *et al.* , 2003). There are examples of damage to fish ear structures from exposure to seismic airguns (McCauley *et al.* , 2000a, 2000b, 2003), but it should be noted the experimental fish were caged and exposed to high cumulative levels of seismic energy. Atlantic salmon were exposed within 1.5 m (4.9 ft) of underwater explosions (Sverdrup *et al.* , 1994). Compared to airgun sources, explosive detonations are characterized by higher peak pressures and more rapid rise and decay times, and are considered to have greater potential to damage marine biota. In spite of this, no salmon mortality was observed immediately after exposure or during the seven-day monitoring period following exposure. Some studies have also provided some information on the effects of seismic exposure on fish eggs and larvae (Kostyuchenko, 1972; Dalen and Knutsen, 1986; Holliday *et al.* , 1987; Matishov, 1992; Booman *et al.* , 1996; Dalen *et al.* , 1996). Overall, impacts appeared to be minimal and any mortality was generally not significantly different from the experimental controls. Generally, any observed larval mortality occurred after exposures within 0.5 3 m (1.6-9.8 ft) of the airgun source. Matishov
(1992)did report some retinal tissue damage in cod larvae exposed at 1 m (3.3 ft) from the airgun source. Saetre and Ona
(1996)applied a 'worst-case scenario' mathematical model to investigate the effects of seismic energy on fish eggs and larvae, and concluded that mortality rates caused by exposure to seismic are so low compared to natural mortality that the impact of seismic surveying on recruitment to a fish stock must be regarded as insignificant. The pathological impacts of seismic energy on marine invertebrate species have also been investigated. Christian *et al.*
(2003)exposed adult male snow crabs, egg-carrying female snow crabs, and fertilized snow crab eggs to energy from seismic airguns. Neither acute nor chronic (12 weeks after exposure) mortality was observed for the adult male and female crabs. There was a significant difference in development rate noted between the exposed and unexposed fertilized eggs. The egg mass exposed to seismic energy had a higher proportion of less-developed eggs than the unexposed mass. It should be noted that both egg masses came from a single female and that any measure of natural variability was unattainable. However, a result such as this does point to the need for further study. Pearson *et al.*
(1994)exposed Stage II larvae of the Dungeness crab to single discharges from a seven-airgun seismic array and compared their mortality and development rates with those of unexposed larvae. For immediate and long-term survival and time to molt, this field experiment did not reveal any statistically-significant differences between the exposed and unexposed larvae, even those exposed within 1 m (3.3 ft) of the seismic source. Bivalves of the Adriatic Sea were also exposed to seismic energy and subsequently assessed (LaBella *et al.* , 1996). No effects of the exposure were noted. To date, there have not been any well-documented cases of acute post-larval fish or invertebrate mortality as a result of exposure to seismic sound under normal seismic operating conditions. Sub-lethal injury or damage has been observed, but generally as a result of exposure to very high received levels of sound, significantly higher than the received levels generated by the single GI gun sound source to be used in the proposed study. Acute mortality of eggs and larvae have been demonstrated in experimental exposures, but only when the eggs and larvae were exposed very close to the seismic sources and the received pressure levels were presumably very high. Limited information has not indicated any chronic mortality as a direct result of exposure to seismic. *Physiological Effect* s - Biochemical responses by marine fish and invertebrates to acoustic stress have also been studied, although in a limited way. Studying the variations in the biochemical parameters influenced by acoustic stress might give some indication of the extent of the stress and perhaps forecast eventual detrimental effects. Such stress could potentially affect animal populations by reducing reproductive capacity and adult abundance. McCauley *et al.* (2000a, 2000b) used various physiological measures to study the physiological effects of exposure to seismic energy on various fish species, squid, and cuttlefish. No significant physiological stress increases attributable to seismic energy were detected. Sverdrup *et al.*
(1994)found that Atlantic salmon subjected to acoustic stress released primary stress hormones, adrenaline and cortisol, as a biochemical response although there were different patterns of delayed increases for the different indicators. Caged European sea bass were exposed to seismic energy and numerous biochemical responses were indicated. All returned to their normal physiological levels within 72 hours of exposure. Stress indicators in the haemolymph of adult male snow crabs were monitored after exposure of the animals to seismic energy (Christian *et al.* , 2003). No significant differences between exposed and unexposed animals were found in the stress indicators (e.g., proteins, enzymes, cell type count). Primary and secondary stress responses of fish after exposure to seismic energy all appear to be temporary in any studies done to date. The times necessary for these biochemical changes to return to normal are variable depending on numerous aspects of the biology of the species and of the sound stimulus. *Summary of Physical (Pathological and Physiological) Effects* - As indicated in the preceding general discussion, there is a relative lack of knowledge about the potential physical (pathological and physiological) effects of seismic energy on marine fish and invertebrates. Available data suggest that there may be physical impacts on egg, larval, juvenile, and adult stages at very close range. Considering typical source levels associated with commercial seismic arrays, close proximity to the source would result in exposure to very high energy levels. Again, this study will employ a sound source that will generate low energy levels. Whereas egg and larval stages are not able to escape such exposures, juveniles and adults most likely would avoid it. In the case of eggs and larvae, it is likely that the numbers adversely affected by such exposure would not be that different from those succumbing to natural mortality. Limited data regarding physiological impacts on fish and invertebrates indicate that these impacts are short term and are most apparent after exposure at close range. The proposed seismic program for 2007 is predicted to have negligible to low physical effects on the various life stages of fish and invertebrates for its short duration (approximately 49 hours at each of five sites on the Ninety East Ridge) and 2700-km extent. Therefore, physical effects of the proposed program on the fish and invertebrates would be not significant. *Fish and Invertebrate Acoustic Detection and Production* - Hearing in fishes was first demonstrated in the early 1900s through studies involving cyprinids (Parker, 1903 and Bigelow, 1904 in Kenyon *et al.* , 1998). Since that time, numerous methods have been used to test auditory sensitivity in fishes, resulting in audiograms of over 50 species. These data reveal great diversity in fish hearing ability, mostly attributable to various peripheral modes of coupling the ear to internal structures, including the swim bladder. However, the general auditory capabilities of <0.2 percent of fish species are known so far. For many years, studies of fish hearing have reported that the hearing bandwidth typically extends from below 100 Hz to approximately 1 kHz in fishes without specializations for sound detection, and up to approximately 7 kHz in fish with specializations that enhance bandwidth and sensitivity. Recently there have been suggestions that certain fishes, including many clupeiforms (herring, shads, anchovies, etc.) may be capable of detecting ultrasonic signals with frequencies as high as 126 kHz (Dunning *et al.* , 1992; Nestler *et al.* , 1992). Studies on Atlantic cod, a non-clupeiform fish, suggested that this species could detect ultrasound at almost 40 kHz (Astrup and M hl, 1993). Mann *et al.*
(2001)showed that the American shad is capable of detecting sounds up to 180 kHz. They also demonstrated that the gulf menhaden is also able to detect ultrasound, whereas other species such as the bay anchovy, scaled sardine, and Spanish sardine only detect sounds with frequencies up to approximately 4 kHz. Among fishes, at least two major pathways for sound transmission to the ear have been identified. The first and most primitive is the conduction of sound directly from the water to tissue and bone. The fish's body takes up the sound's acoustic particle motion and subsequent hair cell stimulation occurs because of the difference in inertia between the hair cells and their overlying otoliths. These species are known as 'hearing generalists' (Fay and Popper, 1999). The second sound pathway to the ears is indirect. The swim bladder or other gas bubble near the ears expands and contracts in volume in response to sound pressure fluctuations, and the motion is then transmitted to the otoliths. While present in most bony fishes, the swim bladder is absent or reduced in many other fish species. Only some species of fish with a swim bladder appear to be sound-pressure sensitive via this indirect pathway to the ears; they are called 'hearing specialists'. Hearing specialists have some sort of connection with the inner ear, either via bony structures known as Weberian ossicles, extensions of the swim bladder, or a swim bladder more proximate to the inner ear. Hearing specialists' sound-pressure sensitivity is high and their upper frequency range of detection is extended above those species that hear only by the direct pathway. Typically, most fish detect sounds of frequencies up to 2,000-Hz but, as indicated, others have detection ranges that extend to much higher frequencies. Fish also possess lateral lines that detect water movements. The essential stimulus for the lateral line consists of differential water movement between the body surface and the surrounding water. The lateral line is typically used in concert with other sensory information, including hearing (Sand, 1981; Coombs and Montgomery, 1999). Elasmobranchs (sharks and skates) lack any known pressure-to-displacement transducers such as swim bladders. Therefore, they presumably must rely on the displacement sensitivity of their mechanoreceptive cells. Unlike acoustic pressure, the kinetic stimulus is inherently directional but its magnitude rapidly decreases relative to the pressure component as it propagates outward from the sound source in the near field. It is believed that elasmobranches are most sensitive to low frequencies, those <1 kHz (Corwin 1981). Because they lack air-filled cavities and are often the same density as water, invertebrates detect underwater acoustics differently than fish. Rather than being pressure sensitive, invertebrates appear to be most sensitive to particle displacement. However, their sensitivity to particle displacement and hydrodynamic stimulation seem poor compared to fish. Decapods, for example, have an extensive array of hair-like receptors both within and upon the body surface that could potentially respond to water- or substrate-borne displacements. They are also equipped with an abundance of proprioceptive organs that could serve secondarily to perceive vibrations. Crustaceans appear to be most sensitive to sounds of low frequencies, those <1000 Hz (Budelmann, 1992; Popper *et al.* , 2001). Many fish and invertebrates are also capable of sound production. It is believed that these sounds are used for communication in a wide range of behavioral and environmental contexts. The behaviors most often associated with acoustic communication include territorial behavior, mate finding, courtship, and aggression. Sound production provides a means of long-distance communication and communication when underwater visibility is poor (Zelick *et al.* , 1999). *Behavioral Effects* - Because of the apparent lack of serious pathological and physiological effects of seismic energy on marine fish and invertebrates, most concern now centers on the possible effects of exposure to seismic surveys on the distribution, migration patterns, and catchability of fish. There is a need for more information on exactly what effects such sound sources might have on the detailed behavior patterns of fish and invertebrates at different ranges. Studies investigating the possible effects of seismic energy on fish and invertebrate behavior have been conducted on both uncaged and caged animals. Studies of change in catch rate regard potential effects of seismic energy on larger spatial and temporal scales than are typical for close-range studies that often involve caged animals (Hirst and Rodhouse, 2000). Hassel *et al.*
(2003)investigated the behavioral effects of seismic pulses on caged sand lance in Norwegian waters. The sand lance did exhibit responses to the seismic, including an increase in swimming rate, an upwards vertical shift in distribution, and startle responses. Normal behaviors were resumed shortly after cessation of the seismic source. None of the observed sand lance reacted by burying into the sand. Engas *et al.*
(1996)assessed the effects of seismic surveying on Atlantic cod and haddock behavior using acoustic mapping and commercial fishing techniques. Results indicated that fish abundance decreased at the seismic survey area, and that the decline in abundance and catch rate lessened with distance from the survey area. Fish abundance and catch rates had not returned to pre-shooting levels five days after cessation of shooting. In other airgun experiments, catch per unit effort
(CPUE)of demersal fish declined when airgun pulses were emitted, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the seismic survey (Dalen and Raknes, 1985; Dalen and Knutsen, 1986; L kkeborg, 1991; Skalski *et al.* , 1992). Reductions in the catch may have resulted from a change in behavior of the fish. The fish schools descended to near the bottom when the airgun was firing, and the fish may have changed their swimming and schooling behavior. Fish behavior returned to normal minutes after the sounds ceased. Marine fish inhabiting an inshore reef off the coast of Scotland were monitored by telemetry and remote camera before, during, and after airgun firing (Wardle *et al.* , 2001). Although some startle responses were observed, the seismic gun firing had little overall effect on the day-to-day behavior of the resident fish. Other species involved in studies that have indicated fish behavioral responses to underwater sound include rockfish (Pearson *et al.* , 1992), Pacific herring (Schwarz and Greer, 1984), and Atlantic herring (Blaxter *et al.* , 1981). The responses observed in these studies were relatively temporary. What is not known is the effect of exposure to seismic energy on fish and invertebrate behaviors that are associated with reproduction and migration. Studies on the effects of sound on fish behavior have also been conducted using caged or confined fish. Such experiments were conducted in Australia using fish, squid, and cuttlefish as subjects (McCauley *et al.* (2000a,b). Common observations of fish behavior included startle response, faster swimming, movement to the part of the cage furthest from the seismic source (i.e., avoidance), and eventual habituation. Fish behavior appeared to return pre-seismic state 15 30 min after cessation of seismic shooting. Squid exhibited strong startle responses to the onset of proximate airgun firing by releasing ink and/or jetting away from the source. The squid consistently made use of the 'sound shadow' at the surface, where the sound intensity was less than at 3-m (9.8 ft) depth. These Australian experiments provided more evidence that fish and invertebrate behavior will be modified at some received sound level. Again, the behavioral changes seem to be temporary. Christian *et al.*
(2003)conducted an experimental commercial fishery for snow crab before and after the area was exposed to seismic shooting. Although the resulting data were not conclusive, no drastic decrease in catch rate was observed after seismic shooting commenced. Another behavioral investigation by Christian *et al.*
(2003)involved caging snow crabs, positioning the cage 50 m (164 ft) below a seven-gun array, and observing the immediate responses of the crabs to the onset of seismic shooting by remote underwater camera. No obvious startle behaviors were observed. Anecdotal information from Newfoundland, Canada, indicated that snow crab catch rates showed a significant reduction immediately following a pass by a seismic survey vessel. Other anecdotal information from Newfoundland indicated that a school of shrimp showing on a fishing vessel sounder shifted downwards and away from a nearby seismic source. Effects were temporary in both the snow crab and shrimp anecdotes (Buchanan *et al.* , 2004). *Summary of Behavioral Effects* - As is the case with pathological and physiological effects of seismic on fish and invertebrates, available information is relatively scant and often contradictory. There have been well-documented observations of fish and invertebrates exhibiting behaviors that appeared to be responses to exposure to seismic energy (i.e., startle response, change in swimming direction and speed, and change in vertical distribution), but the ultimate importance of those behaviors is unclear. Some studies indicate that such behavioral changes are very temporary, whereas others imply that fish might not resume pre-seismic behaviors or distributions for a number of days. There appears to be a great deal of inter- and intra-specific variability. In the case of finfish, three general types of behavioral responses have been identified: startle, alarm, and avoidance. The type of behavioral reaction appears to depend on many factors, including the type of behavior being exhibited before exposure, and proximity and energy level of sound source. During the proposed study, only a small fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time, and fish species would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the seismic activity ceased. The proposed seismic program is predicted to have negligible to low behavioral effects on the various life stages of the fish and invertebrates during its short duration (approximately 49 hours at each of 5 sites on the Ninety East Ridge) and 2700-km extent. Changes in behavior in fish near the airguns might have short-term impacts on the ability of cetaceans to feed near the survey area. However, only a small fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time, and fish species would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the seismic activity ceased. Thus, the proposed survey would have little impact on the abilities of marine mammals to feed in the area where seismic work is planned. Some of the fish that do not avoid the approaching airguns (probably a small number) may be subject to auditory or other injuries. Zooplankters that are very close to the source may react to the shock wave. These animals have an exoskeleton and no air sacs. Little or no mortality is expected. Many crustaceans can make sounds and some crustaceans and other invertebrates have some type of sound receptor. However, the reactions of zooplankters to sound are not known. Some mysticetes feed on concentrations of zooplankton. A reaction by zooplankton to a seismic impulse would only be relevant to whales if it caused a concentration of zooplankton to scatter. Pressure changes of sufficient magnitude to cause this type of reaction would probably occur only very close to the source. Impacts on zooplankton behavior are predicted to be negligible, and this would translate into negligible impacts on feeding mysticetes. Because of the reasons noted above and the nature of the proposed activities (small airguns and limited duration), the proposed operations are not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations or stocks. Monitoring Either dedicated marine mammal observers
(MMOs)or other vessel-based personnel will watch for marine mammals near the seismic source vessel during all daytime and nighttime airgun operations. GI airgun operations will be suspended when marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, designated safety radii where there is a possibility of significant effects on hearing or other physical effects. At least one dedicated vessel-based MMO will watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel during daylight periods when shooting is being conducted, and two MMOs will watch for marine mammals for at least 30 min prior to start-up of airgun operations. Observations of marine mammals will also be made and recorded during any daytime periods without airgun operations. At night, the forward-looking bridge watch of the ship's crew will look for marine mammals that the vessel is approaching, and execute avoidance maneuvers; the 180dB/190dB safety radii around the airguns will be continuously monitored by an aft-looking member of the scientific party, who will call for shutdown of the guns if mammals are observed within the safety radii. Nighttime observers will be aided by (aft-directed) ship's lights and night vision devices (NVDs). Observers will be appointed by SIO with NMFS concurrence. Two observers will be on the vessel, and both will have gone through NOAA/NMFS training for marine mammal observations. Observers will be on duty in shifts usually of duration no longer than two hours. Use of two simultaneous observers prior to start up will increase the detectability of marine mammals present near the source vessel, and will allow simultaneous forward and rearward observations. Bridge personnel additional to the dedicated marine mammal observers will also assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements, and before the start of the seismic survey will be given instruction in how to do so. The *Roger Revelle* is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations, and has been used for that purpose during the routine CalCOFI (California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations). Observing stations will be at the 02 level, with observers' eyes approximately 10.4 m (34 ft) above the waterline: one forward on the 02 deck commanding a forward-centered, approximately 240° view, and one atop the aft hangar, with an aft-centered view that includes the 60-m radius area around the airguns. The eyes of the bridge watch will be at a height of approximately 15 m (49 ft); marine mammal observers will repair to the enclosed bridge and adjoining aft steering station during any inclement weather (unlikely at this place and season), and as necessary to use the 50 X “big-eye” binoculars that are mounted there. Standard equipment for marine mammal observers will be 7 X 50 reticle binoculars and optical range finders. At night, night vision equipment will be available. The observers will be in wireless communication with ship's officers on the bridge and scientists in the vessel's operations laboratory, so they can advise promptly of the need for avoidance maneuvers or airgun power-down or shut-down. The vessel-based monitoring will provide data required to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels, to document any apparent disturbance reactions, and thus to estimate the numbers of mammals potentially “taken” by harassment. It will also provide the information needed in order to shut down the GI airguns at times when mammals are present in or near the safety zone. When a mammal sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded:
(1)Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to seismic vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace.
(2)Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (shooting or not), sea state, visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare. The data listed under
(2)will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a watch, whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables. All mammal observations and airgun shutdowns will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into a custom database using a notebook computer when observers are off duty. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered, and by subsequent manual checking of the database. Those 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: • The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun shut down). • Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS. • Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted. • Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity. • Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity. Mitigation For the proposed seismic surveys in the Northeastern Indian Ocean during May August 2007, SIO will deploy two GI airguns as an energy source, with a total discharge volume of 90 in3. The energy from the airguns will be directed mostly downward. The small size of the airguns to be used during the proposed study will reduce the potential for effects relative to those that might occur with a large airgun arrays. In addition to marine mammal monitoring, the following mitigation measures will be adopted during the proposed seismic program, provided that doing so will not compromise operational safety requirements. Although power-down procedures are often standard operating practice for seismic surveys, it will not be used here because powering down from two guns to one gun would make only a small difference in the 180- or 190-dB radius - probably not enough to allow continued one-gun operations if a mammal came within the safety radius for two guns. Mitigation measures that will be adopted are:
(1)Speed or course alteration;
(2)Ramp-up and shut-down procedures; and
(3)Night operations; *Speed or Course Alteration* - If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter the safety radius, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when practical and safe, be changed in a manner that also minimizes the effect to the planned science objectives. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored to ensure that the animal does not approach within the safety radius. If the animal appears likely to enter the safety radius, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e. either further course alterations or shut down of the airguns. *Shut-down Procedures* - If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius but is likely to enter the safety radius, and if the vessel's course and/or speed cannot be changed to avoid having the animal enter the safety radius, the airguns will be shut down before the animal is within the safety radius (10 m (33 ft) for pinnipeds (190-dB isopleth) or 40 m (131 ft) for cetaceans (180-dB isopleth)). Likewise, if a marine mammal is already within the safety radius when first detected, the airguns will be shut down immediately. Airgun activity will not resume until the animal has cleared the safety radius. The animal will be considered to have cleared the safety radius if it is visually observed to have left the safety radius, or if it has not been seen within the radius for 15 min (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, beaked, and bottlenose whales). *Ramp-up Procedures* - A “ramp-up” procedure will be followed when the airguns begin operating after a period without airgun operations. The two GI guns will be added in sequence 5 minutes apart. During ramp-up procedures, the safety radius for the two GI guns will be maintained. *Night Operations* - At night, vessel lights and/or night vision devices
(NVDs)could be useful in sighting some marine mammals at the surface within a short distance from the ship (within the safety radii for the two GI guns in deep water). Start up of the airguns will only occur in situations when the entire safety radius is visible with vessel lights and NVDs. Reporting A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The end of the northeastern Indian Ocean cruise is predicted to occur between July 16 and August 13, 2007. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and the marine mammals that were detected near the operations. The report will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), and estimates of the amount and nature of potential “take” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. Endangered Species Act Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)the NSF has begun consultation on this proposed seismic survey. NMFS will also consult on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of the IHA. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)NSF prepared an Environmental Assessment of a Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the Northeast Indian Ocean, May July 2007. NMFS will either adopt NSF's EA or conduct a separate NEPA analysis, as necessary, prior to making a determination on the issuance of the IHA. Preliminary Determinations NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of conducting the seismic survey in the northeast Indian Ocean may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior (Level B Harassment) of small numbers of 29 species of cetaceans. Further, this activity is expected to result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks. The provision requiring that the activity not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected species or stock for subsistence uses does not apply for this proposed action. For reasons stated peviously in this document, this determination is supported by:
(1)the likelihood that, given sufficient notice through relatively slow ship speed and rampup, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious;
(2)the fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 40 m from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (180 dB) believed to have even a minimal chance of causing TTS; and
(3)the likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high at that short distance from the vessel. As a result, no take by injury or death is anticipated and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is very low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small, less than a few percent of any of the estimated population sizes, and has been mitigated to the lowest level practicable through incorporation of the measures mentioned previously in this document. Proposed Authorization As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to SIO for conducting a low-energy seismic survey in the Indian Ocean from May - August, 2007, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: April 4, 2007. David Cottingham, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6750 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 010207B] Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Seismic Surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of application and proposed incidental take authorization; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from Shell Offshore, Inc.
(SOI)for an Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA)to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting open-water offshore exploratory drilling on Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)oil lease blocks in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to SOI to incidentally take, by Level B harassment, small numbers of several species of marine mammals between mid-July and November, 2007, incidental to conducting this drilling program. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than May 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the application should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning the contact listed here. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *PR1.010207B @noaa.gov* . Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the application (containing a list of the references used in this document) may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact listed here and are also available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#iha* . Documents cited in this document, that are not available through standard public library access methods, may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours at this address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289 or Brad Smith, NMFS, Alaska Regional Office 907-271-3023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or
(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. Summary of Request Open Water Exploration Drilling SOI is planning to utilize two drilling units during the 2007 open water season in order to drill priority exploration targets on their U.S. Minerals Management Services
(MMS)OCS leases in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The highest priority exploratory targets for 2007 are located offshore of Pt. Thomson and Flaxman Island, on the leaseholds referred to as Sivulliq and Olympia, in Camden Bay. However, given the locations of open water conditions during 2007 and permit/authorization stipulations, SOI may elect to re-prioritize well locations on one, or more of their OCS leases (see Figure 1 in SOI's IHA application). Re-prioritizing of drilling prospects due to ice may cause drilling to occur at other Beaufort Sea OCS leases held by SOI, but only those that have been pre-cleared to the satisfaction of MMS. It is anticipated that the drilling vessels will each drill up to two wells during the open water season of 2007. The drilling units proposed for SOI's 2007 OCS drilling program include the semi-submersible drill ship, the *Kulluk* , and a floating drill ship, the *Frontier Discoverer* ( *Discoverer* ). Both the *Kulluk* and *Discoverer* will be mobilized into the Beaufort Sea as soon as ice conditions permit. Each will be accompanied by up to two Arctic-class, foreign-flagged, ice management vessels which will also serve duty as anchor tenders, and other drill ship support tasks. These ice management vessels are: the *M/V Jim Kilabuk* , the *M/V Vladimir Ignatjuk* , the *M/V Kapitan Dranitsyn* , the *M/V Fennica-Nordica* ,; and the *M/V Tor Viking* . Additional support vessels, such as the *M/V Peregrine* and aircraft will also be used during the drilling season, assisting with crew change support and provision re-supply. Oil spill response vessels
(OSRV)will accompany the drill ships, at all times while drilling occurs through prospective hydrocarbon- bearing zones. Projected dates for arrivals of OSRVs on location in the Beaufort Sea will be known around the end of April/May 2007. An ice-class, purpose built OSRV is being constructed for SOI and will be deployed in the Beaufort Sea for this drilling program. Potential OSRV support includes the *Arctic Endeavor* barge and associated tug; and an OSR tanker that will be staged in proximity to both drilling units. Specifications for the *Kulluk* , *Discoverer* and prospective ice management vessels are included in SOI's IHA application. The *Kulluk* is currently moored in McKinley Bay, Yukon Territory, Canada. Ice management support ( *Ignatjuk* and *Fennica-Nordica* ) for the *Kulluk* are projected to enter the Beaufort Sea during mid-late June 2007 traveling west to east toward McKinley Bay. The *Kulluk* is projected to be towed into the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during July 2007 by one of the arctic class ice management vessels, which travel through the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas before arriving in McKinley Bay for mobilization. The *Discoverer* is currently docked in Singapore and will travel to Kotzebue for re-supply before mobilizing into the Beaufort Sea, accompanied by ice management vessels. The *Dranitsyn* will provide ice management support for the *Discoverer* . Both ships are expected to depart Kotzebue in early July before entering the Beaufort Sea. These vessels will traverse the Alaskan Beaufort from west to east and are projected to begin the traverse before July 1, 2007. These vessels should free the *Kulluk* and ready it for mobilization to the Alaskan Beaufort Sea by late July or early August 2007. The *Tor Viking* is projected to enter the Beaufort Sea during mid-late June 2007 and arrive on location of the Sivulliq prospect in late June. The *Kilabuk* will provide support and supply to the *Kulluk* . Toward the end of July, an additional ice management vessel (the *Dranitsyn* ) will escort the *Discoverer* from the Bering Sea northward through the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas to drilling prospects where ice conditions allow safe operating access. At the conclusion of open water operations around the end of October 2007, SOI expects to demobilize both the *Kulluk* and the *Discoverer* before the end of November 2007. The *Kulluk* will be accompanied by two ice management vessels back to the Canadian Beaufort Sea (McKinley Bay), while two ice management vessels will accompany the *Discoverer* west through the Beaufort Sea and south through the Chukchi Sea. Pre-Feasibility Geotechnical Borehole Drilling To obtain geotechnical data for pre-feasibility analyses of shallow sub-sea sediments, SOI plans to drill as many as eight boreholes, each up to 400 ft (122 m) in depth. SOI notes that these boreholes will be completed at depths more than one mile (1.6 km) above any of the prospective subsurface hydrocarbon- bearing zones in the Sivulliq prospect (see Figure 1 in SOI's application). Three potential development locations will be investigated at Sivulliq, deeper locations along a prospective pipeline access corridor will also be investigated. This operation is expected to take approximately one week per borehole. The geotechnical survey component of the program will be conducted by a vessel typically over 200 ft (61 m) in length, with a moon-pool and drilling rig approximately at mid-ships, A-frame at the stern, helideck above the bow/bridge and accommodations for about 40 technical staff and crew. A typical geotechnical coring vessel is illustrated in Attachment A of SOI's MMPA application. The geotechnical drilling is expected to begin during July 2007. Including weather, ice conditions and logistics/resupply it is anticipated that geotechnical borings may require up to 8 weeks within a 12-week time-frame finished by the end of October 2007. The proposed geotechnical locations include the Sivulliq prospect and the Pt. Thomson to Sivulliq prospective pipeline access corridor. Marine Mammals A total of three cetacean species (bowhead, gray, and beluga whales), three species of pinnipeds (ringed, spotted, and bearded seal), and one marine carnivore (polar bear) are known to occur in or near the proposed drilling areas in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. Other extralimital species that occasionally occur in very small numbers in this portion of the U.S. Beaufort Sea include the harbor porpoise and killer whale. However, because of their rarity in this area, they are not expected to be exposed to, or affected by, any activities associated with the drilling, and are not discussed further. The polar bear is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and is not discussed further in this document. The species and numbers of marine mammals likely to be found within this portion of the Beaufort Sea are listed in Table 4-1 in SOI's IHA application. A description of the biology and distribution of the marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction can be found in SOI's IHA application, MMS' 2006 PEA for Arctic seismic activities, the NMFS/MMS Draft Programmatic EIS for Arctic Seismic in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and several other documents (e.g., MMS Final EA for Lease Sale 202, Army Corps of Engineers for the Northstar Project, 1999). Information on these species can be found also in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports. The 2006 Alaska Stock Assessment Report is available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/region.htm* Please refer to these documents for information on these potentially affected marine mammal species. Potential Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals Disturbance by drilling sounds is the principal means of taking by this activity. Drilling vessels, support vessels including ice management vessels, and aircraft may provide a potential second source of noise. The physical presence of vessels and aircraft could also lead to non-acoustic effects on marine mammals involving visual or other cues. As outlined in previous NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, and can be categorized as follows (based on Richardson *et al.* , 1995):
(1)The noise may be too weak to be heard at the location of the animal (i.e., lower than the prevailing ambient noise level, the hearing threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or both);
(2)The noise may be audible but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral response;
(3)The noise may elicit reactions of variable conspicuousness and variable relevance to the well being of the marine mammal; these can range from temporary alert responses to active avoidance reactions such as vacating an area at least until the noise event ceases;
(4)Upon repeated exposure, a marine mammal may exhibit diminishing responsiveness (habituation), or disturbance effects may persist; the latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in characteristics, infrequent and unpredictable in occurrence, and associated with situations that a marine mammal perceives as a threat;
(5)Any anthropogenic noise that is strong enough to be heard has the potential to reduce
(mask)the ability of a marine mammal to hear natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from conspecifics, and underwater environmental sounds such as surf noise;
(6)If mammals remain in an area because it is important for feeding, breeding or some other biologically important purpose even though there is chronic exposure to noise, it is possible that there could be noise-induced physiological stress; this might in turn have negative effects on the well-being or reproduction of the animals involved; and
(7)Very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and presumably marine mammals, received sound levels must far exceed the animal's hearing threshold for there to be any temporary threshold shift
(TTS)in its hearing ability. For transient sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is inversely related to the duration of the sound. Received sound levels must be even higher for there to be risk of permanent hearing impairment. In addition, intense acoustic or explosive events may cause trauma to tissues associated with organs vital for hearing, sound production, respiration and other functions. This trauma may include minor to severe hemorrhage. The only anticipated impacts to marine mammals associated with drilling activities are from propagation of sounds from the drilling units and associated support vessels and aircraft. SOI and NMFS believe that any impacts on the whale and seal populations of the Beaufort Sea activity area are likely to be short term and transitory arising from the temporary displacement of individuals or small groups from locations they may occupy at the times they are exposed to intermittent drilling sounds at the 120-190 db received levels. As noted in SOI's IHA application, it is highly unlikely that animals will be exposed to sounds of such intensity and duration as to physically damage their auditory mechanisms. In the case of bowhead whales that displacement might well take the form of a deflection of the swim paths of migrating bowheads away from (seaward of) received noise levels greater than 160 db (Richardson *et al.* , 1999). This study and other studies conducted to test the hypothesis of the deflection response of bowheads have determined that bowheads return to the swim paths they were following at relatively short distances after their exposure to the received sounds (SOI, 2006). To date, no evidence has been obtained that bowheads so exposed have incurred injury to their auditory mechanisms. Additionally, while there is no conclusive evidence that exposure to sounds exceeding 160 db have displaced bowheads from feeding activity (Richardson and Thomson, 2002), there is some information that intermittent sounds (e.g., oil drilling and vessel propulsion sounds) may cause a deflection in the migratory path of whales (Malme *et al.* , 1983, 1984), but possibly not when the acoustic source is not in the direct migratory path (Tyack and Clark, 1998). There is no evidence that seals are more than temporarily displaced from ensonified zones and no evidence that seals have experienced physical damage to their auditory mechanisms even within ensonified zones. Distance Effects of Open Water Drilling on Marine Mammals The only type of incidental taking requested in SOI's IHA application is that of takes by noise harassment. The principal sources of project-created noise will be those resulting from the *Kulluk* and *Discoverer* and their support vessels, especially ice management vessels. Although the bulk of the activity will be centered in the area of drilling, potential exposures, or impacts to marine mammals also will occur as the drilling vessels, and ice management vessels mobilize through the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Noise propagation studies were performed on the *Kulluk* (Hall *et al.* , 1994) in the Kuvlum prospect drill sites, approximately 6 mi (9.6 km) east of SOI's Sivulliq prospect that SOI is proposing to drill during 2007. Acoustic recording devices were established at 10-m (33-ft) and 20-m (65.6-ft) depths below water surface at varying distances from the *Kulluk* and decibel
(dB)levels were recorded during drilling operations. There were large differences between sound propagation between the different water depths. At 10 m (33 ft) water depth, the 120-db threshold had a 0.7-km (0.4-mi) radius around the *Kulluk* , and the 105-db threshold had an 8.5-km (5.3-mi) radius. At a depth of 20 m (66 ft) below water surface, the 120-db threshold had a radius of 8.5 km (5.3 mi) and the 105-db threshold had a radius of 100 km (62.1 mi). There is no definitive explanation for the large differences in propagation at the different levels. Possible explanations include the presence of an acoustic layer due to melting ice during the sound studies and/or sound being channeled into the lower depths due to the seafloor topography (SOI, 2006). However, new sound propagation studies will be performed on the *Kulluk* , *Discoverer* , ice management, and support vessels once these vessels are at their locations for drilling in the Beaufort Sea. Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected to Be Taken Using the marine mammal density estimates presented in Table 6-1 (see IHA application), SOI provided estimates of the numbers of potential marine mammal sound exposures in Table 6-2. Average expected abundances for bowhead whales were derived from the Miller *et al.*
(2002)feeding study in which total proportion of the population “moving through” was estimated for the depth isopleths in which drilling operations are expected to occur. These estimates are based on the 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)criteria for most cetaceans, because this range is assumed to be the sound source level at which marine mammals may change their behavior sufficiently to be considered “taken by harassment.” The proportion of bowhead whales that might occur within the area potentially ensonified by the 160 dB criterion was estimated from Richardson and Thomson
(2002)in which average migrating distribution across the 0-20, 20-40, 40-200 and >200 m (65.6 ft, 131 ft, 656 ft respectively) isopleths are estimated to be 25, 27, 37, and 10 percent of the population respectively. As the majority of the operations related to the 2007 drilling program will occur within the 20-40 m (65.6-131 ft) depth isopleth, SOI estimates that the average expected number of bowheads in this area would be 3,480 individuals. As a conservative estimate of potential bowheads present was twice that number, or a maximum estimate of 6,960 individual bowheads. Hall *et al.*
(1994)utilized measurements from sonobuoys deployed at distances of 20, 27, and 34 km (65.6, 88.6, 111.5 ft) from active drilling operations to estimate that combined activities including drilling, geotechnical boring, vessel transit, and ice management activities may reach 160 dB at a distance of 200 m (656 ft) from the source. Although no single source produced measured sound in excess of 160 dB, this 200-m (656-ft) distance was selected by SOI as a conservative estimate of potential sound propagation from drilling related sources. Although planned operating procedures will limit the number of sound sources that will be operating during any portion of the bowhead migration, the additional conservative assumption is made that 10 sources could simultaneously operate at a level to cumulatively produce 160 dB at 200 m (656 ft). Therefore, the total 160 dB ensonified area would be 2 km (1.2 mi), or approximately 7 percent of the 29-km (18-mi) wide 20-40 m (65.6-131 ft) isopleth. Seven percent of the bowhead whales present in the 20-40 m (65.6-131 ft) isopleth would be 244 animals at the average density estimate and 488 animals at the maximum density estimate. Based on the findings by Malme *et al.* (1983, 1984) for intermittent low-frequency noise exposures on a low-frequency hearing specialist (gray whales), NMFS requested SOI prepare an estimation of sound exposures to the level of 120 dB rms. Although the biological significance of this 120-dB sound level is subject to debate (as indicated by later research (Tyack and Clark, 1998), if the LF source was removed from the direct migratory path, gray whales ignored the signal), several related studies report (discussed next) that migrating bowhead whales react to and, possibly avoid, sound levels in excess of 120 dB. As such, estimation of exposures to 120 dB levels is included in this discussion. SOI points out that one difficulty with NMFS' 120-dB criterion for intermittent noise is an inconsistency between field observations of migrating bowhead avoidance behavior associated with sound measurements and sound measurements and modeling that is independent of whale observations. The majority of observations (in the Beaufort Sea) upon which the 120-dB criterion are based are derived from aerial monitoring programs around both drilling and seismic sources. Closest observed proximity of bowhead whales to operating drilling or icebreaking operations vary between 3 km (1.86 mi) (Hall *et al.* , 1994), 11 km (6.8 mi) (LGL & Greeneridge, 1987) and 19 km (11.8 mi) (Ljungblad *et al.* ,1987). SOI notes that there is some consistency, however, in estimation of the distance of deflection from drilling/ice management activities being in the range of 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) from the source. Sound measurements acquired in the proximity of observed whales tend to be approximately 120 dB leading to the conclusion that migrating bowheads tend to avoid sound levels in excess of 120 dB (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). Similar conclusions have been drawn from observations around operating seismic vessels (LGL, 2005). Projection of sound propagation from measurements of sound around drilling operations and seismic operations and modeled sound propagation (Hall *et al.* , 1994) yielded estimations of the 120-dB isopleth well beyond the 20 km (12.4 mi) distance. For example, Hall *et al.*
(1994)estimated the 120-dB isopleth for combined drilling/ice management operations to be in excess of 100 km (62 mi) from the source(s). While subsistence hunters report changes in migrating bowhead whale behavior at distance as far as 35 mi (56 km) from operating seismic vessels, extrapolation of avoidance to greater distances is not generally reported. For the purpose of estimation of relevant exposures for bowhead whales, a reasonably conservative distance of 30 km (18.6 mi) zone of potential exposure around drilling operations would produce exposures within the 0-20, 20-40, and 40-200 m (65.6 ft, 131 ft, 656 ft respectively) depth zones. As a result, it is possible that exposures to sound levels in excess of 120 dB could be experienced by as much as 65 percent of the population (8,378 individuals). For all other species, the average expected abundance was estimated by multiplying the reported densities (Table 6-1 in the IHA application) for each species times a potential operational area of 840 km2 (operational is the area in which primary drilling activities will occur, i.e. 29-km (18-mi) width of the 20-m - 40-m (65.6-ft - 131-ft) depth isopleth squared). Maximum expected abundances for all species were estimated by multiplying average expected abundance times two. Average and expected exposures were then calculated by multiplying the abundance times the expected portion of the operational area expected to be ensonified greater than 160 dB (i.e. 0.069). Ringed seals would be the most prevalent marine mammal species encountered at each of the two proposed drilling areas. Pinnipeds are not likely to react to sounds unless they are >170 dB re 1 microPa (rms), and Moulton and Lawson
(2002)indicated that most pinnipeds exposed to 170 dB do not visibly react. Under this IHA, SOI has requested a take authorization for all pinnipeds using the maximum density between 170 and 179 dB instead of the 160 dB threshold. SOI's decision to use the lower estimated number is based on the theory that surveys for pinnipeds within the Beaufort Sea, and elsewhere, are based on on-ice counts which will overestimate the number of potential exposures (i.e., only a portion of the animals are in the water, and therefore, could be exposed). Spotted and bearded seals may be encountered in much small numbers than ringed seals, but also have the potential for some exposure. Potential Impact of the Activity on the Species or Stock SOI states that the only anticipated impacts to marine mammals associated with drilling activities would be behavioral reactions to noise propagation from the drilling units and associated support vessels. NMFS notes however, that in addition to these sources of anthropogenic sounds, additional disturbance to marine mammals may result from aircraft overflights and the resulting visual disturbance by the drilling vessels themselves. SOI and NMFS believe, however, that the impacts would be temporary and result in only short term displacement of seals and whales from within ensonified zones produced by such noise sources. Any impacts on the whale and seal populations of the Beaufort Sea activity area are likely to be short term and transitory arising from the temporary displacement of individuals or small groups from locations they may occupy at the times they are exposed to drilling sounds at the 160-190 db (or lower) received levels. As noted, it is highly unlikely that animals will be exposed to sounds of such intensity and duration as to physically damage their auditory mechanisms. In the case of bowhead whales that displacement might well take the form of a deflection of the swim paths of migrating bowheads away from (seaward of) received noise levels greater than 160 db (Richardson *et al.* , 1999). Studies conducted to test the hypothesis of the deflection response of bowheads have determined that bowheads return to the swim paths they were following at relatively short distances after their exposure to the received sounds (SOI, 2006). There is no evidence that bowheads so exposed have incurred injury to their auditory mechanisms. Additionally, there is no conclusive evidence that exposure to sounds exceeding 160 db have displaced bowheads from feeding activity (Richardson and Thomson, 2002). Finally, there is no indication that seals are more than temporarily displaced from ensonified zones and no evidence that seals have experienced physical damage to their auditory mechanisms even within ensonified zones. Potential Effects of Drilling Sounds and Related Activities on Subsistence Needs SOI notes that there could be an adverse impact on the Inupiat bowhead subsistence hunt if the whales were deflected seaward (further from shore) in the traditional hunting areas north of Pt. Thomson in Camden Bay. The impact would be that whaling crews would necessarily be forced to travel greater distances to intercept westward migrating whales thereby creating a safety hazard for whaling crews and/or limiting chances of successfully striking and landing bowheads. This potential impact is proposed to be mitigated by the application of mitigation procedures described later in this document and implemented by a Conflict Avoidance Agreement
(CAA)between the SOI, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission
(AEWC)and the whaling captains' associations of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut and Barrow. SOI believes that the proposed mitigation measures will minimize adverse effects on whales and whalers. (see Mitigation later in this document). As a result, there should not be an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the marine mammal species, particularly bowhead whales, for subsistence uses. Potential Impact On Habitat SOI states that the proposed drilling and related activities will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, or to their prey sources. Any effects would be temporary and of short duration at any one location. The effects of the planned drilling activities are expected to be negligible. It is estimated that only a small portion of the animals utilizing the areas of the proposed activities would be temporarily displaced from that habitat. During the period of drilling activities (late-July or early-August through October 2007), most marine mammals would be dispersed throughout the Beaufort Sea area. The peak of the bowhead whale migration through the Beaufort Sea typically occurs in October, and efforts to reduce potential impacts during this time will be discussed with the affected whaling communities. Starting in late- August, bowheads may travel in proximity to the drilling activity and some might be displaced seaward by the planned activities. The numbers of cetaceans and pinnipeds subject to displacement are small in relation to abundance estimates for the affected mammal stocks. In addition, SOI states that feeding does not appear to be an important activity by bowheads migrating through the eastern and central part of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in most years. In the absence of important feeding areas, the potential diversion of a small number of bowheads is not expected to have any significant or long-term consequences for individual bowheads or their population. Bowheads, gray, or beluga whales are not predicted to be excluded from any significant habitat. The proposed activities are not expected to have any habitat-related effects that would produce long-term affects to marine mammals or their habitat due to the limited extent of the acquisition areas and timing of the activities. Proposed Mitigation and Monitoring Measures SOI has proposed implementing a marine mammal mitigation and monitoring program (MMMMP) that will consist of monitoring and mitigation during the exploratory drilling activities. In conjunction with monitoring during SOI's seismic and shallow-hazard surveys (subject to an upcoming notice and review), monitoring will provide information on the numbers of marine mammals potentially affected by these activities and permit real time mitigation to prevent injury of marine mammals by industrial sounds or activities. These goals will be accomplished by conducting vessel- , aerial-, and acoustic-monitoring programs to characterize the sounds produced by the drilling and to document the potential reactions of marine mammals in the area to those sounds and activities. Acoustic modeling will be used to predict the sound levels produced by the shallow hazards and drilling equipment in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. For the drilling program, acoustic measurements will also be made to establish zones of influence
(ZOIs)around the activities that will be monitored by observers. Aerial monitoring and reconnaissance of marine mammals and recordings of ambient sound levels, vocalizations of marine mammals, and received levels should they be detectable using bottom-founded acoustic recorders along the Beaufort Sea coast will be used to interpret the reactions of marine mammals exposed to the activities. The components of SOI's monitoring program is briefly described next. Additional information can be found in SOI's application. Underwater Acoustics Program Sounds produced during the drilling operation and by the shallow hazards equipment and other support vessels will be measured in the field during typical operations. These measurements will be used to establish disturbance radii for marine mammal groups within the project area. The objectives of SOI's planned work are:
(1)to measure the distances from the various sound sources to broadband received levels of 170, 160, and 120 dB rms re 1 microPa (sounds are not expected to reach 180 dB), and
(2)to measure the radiated vessel sounds vs. distance for the source and support vessels. The measurements will be made at the beginning of the specific activity (i.e., shallow hazards survey activity and drilling activity) and all safety and disturbance radii will be reported within 72 hours of completing the measurements. For the drilling operation, a subsequent mid-season assessment will be conducted to measure sound propagation from combined drilling operations during “normal” operations. For drilling activities, the primary radii of concern will be the 160-dB disturbance radii (although measurements will be made to the 180-dB isopleth). In addition to reporting the radii of specific regulatory concern, distances to other sound isopleths down to 120 dB (if measurable) will be reported in increments of 10 dB. The distance at which received sound levels become >120 dB for continuous sound (which occurs during drilling activities as opposed to impulsive sound which occurs during seismic activities) is sometimes considered to be a zone of potential disturbance for some cetacean species by NMFS. SOI plans to use vessel-based marine mammal observers
(MMOs)to monitor the 160-dB disturbance radii around the seismic sound sources and, if necessary, to implement mitigation measures for the 190- and 180-dB safety radii. The MMOs will also monitor the 120-dB zone around the drilling ships. An aerial survey program will be implemented to monitor the 120-dB zone around the drilling activities in the Beaufort Sea in 2007. These two monitoring and mitigation programs are discussed next. SOI plans to use a qualified acoustical contractor to measure the sound propagation of the vessel-based drilling rigs during periods of drilling activity, and the drill ships and support vessels while they are underway at the start of the field season. Noise from ships with ice-breaking capabilities will be measured during periods of ice-breaking activity. These measurements will be used to determine the sound levels produced by various equipment and to establish any safety and disturbance radii if necessary. Bottom-founded hydrophones similar to those used in 2006 for measurements of vessel-based seismic sound propagation will likely be used to determine the levels of sound propagation from the drill rigs and associated vessels. An initial sound source analysis will be supplied to NMFS and the drilling operators within 72 hours of completion of the measurements, if possible. A detailed report on the methodology and results of these tests will be provided to NMFS as part of the 90 day report following completion of the drilling program. Acoustic Monitoring Program SOI plans to develop an acoustic component of the MMMMP to further understand, define, and document sound characteristics and propagation within the broader Beaufort Sea and potential deflections of bowhead whales from anticipated migratory pathways in response to vessel-based drilling activities. Of particular interest for this investigatory component is the east-west extent of deflection (i.e., how far east of a sound source do bowheads begin to deflect and how far to the west beyond the sound source does deflection persist). Of additional interest is the extent of offshore deflection that occurs. Currently, insufficient information is available on how vessel-based drilling noise similar to that proposed by SOI in the Beaufort Sea in 2007 may impact migrating bowhead whales. Determining the potential effects of drilling noise on migration bowhead whales will be complicated by the presence of ice-breaking and other support vessels that may contribute significantly to underwater sound levels. Miles *et al.*
(1987)reported higher sound pressure levels
(SPLs)from ice-breakers underway in open water than from vessel-based drilling activity. SPLs from dredging activity, a working tug, and an icebreaker pushing ice were also greater than those produced by vessel-based drilling activity. However, sounds produced during drilling activity are relatively continuous while ice management vessel sounds are considered to be intermittent, and there is some concern that continuous and intermittent sounds may result in behavioral reactions (at least in mysticete whales) at a greater distance than impulse sound (i.e., seismic) of the same intensity. Acoustic localization methods provide a possible alternative to aerial surveys for addressing these questions. As compared with aerial surveys, acoustic methods have the advantage of providing a vastly larger number of whale detections, and can operate day or night, independent of visibility, and to some degree independent of ice conditions and sea state-all of which prevent or impair aerial surveys. However, acoustic methods depend on the animals to call, and to some extent assume that calling rate is unaffected by exposure to industrial noise. Bowheads do call frequently in the fall, but there is some evidence that their calling rate may be reduced upon exposure to industrial sounds, complicating interpretation. Also, acoustic methods require development and deployment of instruments that are stationary (preferably mounted on the bottom) to record and localize the whale calls. According to SOI, acoustic methods would likely be more effective for studying impacts related to a stationary sound source, such as a drilling rig that is operating within a relatively localized area, than for a moving sound source such as that produced by a seismic source vessel. In addition, SOI plans to conduct a study in 2007 similar to the one conducted for seismic in 2006 in the Chukchi Sea to determine the effect of drilling noise and noise from support vessels and seismic activities on migrating bowhead whales. An acoustic “net” array was used during the 2006 field season in the Chukchi Sea. It was designed to
(1)collect information on the occurrence and distribution of beluga whales that may be available to subsistence hunters near villages located on the Chukchi Sea coast, and
(2)measure the ambient noise levels near these villages and record received levels of sounds from seismic survey activities should they be detectable. The basic components of this effort consisted of bottom-founded equipment for long-duration passive acoustic recording. A suite of autonomous seafloor recorders was deployed in a “net” array extending from nearshore to approximately 50 miles offshore. During the 2007 drilling program, SOI proposes to deploy bottom-founded acoustic recorders around SOI's drilling activities that have the ability of recording calling whales. Figure 1 in SOI's IHA application shows potential locations of the bottom-founded recorders and an array layout in relation to the drilling site. The actual locations of the bottom-founded recorders will depend on specifications of recording equipment chosen for the project, and on the acoustical characteristics of the environment, which are yet to be determined. The results of these data will be used to determine the extent of deflection of migrating bowhead whales from the sound sources produced by the vessel-based drill rig. Aerial Survey Monitoring Program SOI proposes to conduct an aerial survey program in support of its dual seismic exploration and drilling programs in the Beaufort Sea during summer and fall of 2007. The objectives of the aerial survey will be to:
(1)advise operating vessels as to the presence of marine mammals in the general area of operations;
(2)monitor the area east of the seismic activity to ensure that large numbers of bowhead mothers and calves do not enter the area where they would be ensonified by seismic sounds ≥120 dB re 1microPa, which might displace them from feeding areas or their preferred migratory routes,
(3)collect and report data on the distribution, numbers, movement and behavior of marine mammals near the seismic and drilling operations with special emphasis on migrating bowhead whales;
(4)support regulatory reporting and Inupiat communications related to the estimation of impacts of seismic and drilling operations on marine mammals;
(5)monitor the accessibility of bowhead whales to Inupiat hunters; and,
(6)document how far west of seismic and drilling activities bowhead whales travel before they return to their normal migration paths, and if possible, to document how far east of seismic and drilling operations the deflection begins. For additional information on SOI's aerial survey design and other information, please refer to SOI's IHA application. Vessel-based Marine Mammal Monitoring Program The vessel-based operations will be the core of SOI's MMMMP. The MMMMP will be designed to ensure that disturbance to marine mammals and subsistence hunts is minimized, that effects on marine mammals are documented, and to collect baseline data on the occurrence and distribution of marine mammals in the study area. Those objectives will be achieved, in part, through the vessel-based monitoring and mitigation program. The MMMMP will be implemented by a team of experienced MMOs, including both biologists and Inupiat personnel, approved in advance by NMFS. The MMOs will be stationed aboard the drilling vessels and associated support vessels throughout the drilling period. The duties of the MMOs will include watching for and identifying marine mammals; recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the drilling operations; initiating mitigation measures when appropriate; and reporting the results. Reporting of the results of the vessel-based monitoring program will include the estimation of the number of “takes.” Drilling activities are expected to occur during August and October 2007. The dates and operating areas will depend upon ice and weather conditions, along with SOI's arrangements with agencies and stakeholders. Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals will be performed throughout the period of drilling operations. The vessel-based work will provide:
(1)the basis for real-time mitigation,
(2)information needed to estimate the “take” of marine mammals by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS and USFWS,
(3)data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the areas where the drilling program is conducted,
(4)information to compare the distances, distributions, behavior, and movements of marine mammals relative to the source vessels at times with and without drilling or ice-management activity,
(5)a communication channel to Inupiat whalers and the Whaling Coordination Center, and
(6)employment and capacity building for local residents, with one objective being to develop a larger pool of experienced Inupiat MMOs. All MMOs will be provided training through a program approved by NMFS, as described later. At least one observer on each vessel will be an Inupiat who will have the additional responsibility of communicating with the Inupiat community and (during the whaling season) directly with Inupiat whalers. Details of the vessel-based marine mammal monitoring program are described in the IHA application. Mitigation Measures During Drilling Activities SOI's proposed offshore drilling program incorporates both design features and operational procedures for minimizing potential impacts on marine mammals and on subsistence hunts. The design features and operational procedures are described in the IHA application and are summarized below. Survey design features to reduce impacts include:
(1)timing and locating some drilling support activities to avoid interference with the annual fall bowhead whale hunts from Kaktovik, Nuiqsut (Cross Island), and Barrow;
(2)conducting pre-season modeling and early season field assessments to establish the appropriate 180 dB and 190 dB safety zones (if necessary), and the 160 and 120 dB behavior radii; and
(3)vessel-based (and aerial) monitoring to implement appropriate mitigation (and to assess the effects of project activities on marine mammals). Under current NMFS guidance “safety radii” for marine mammals around acoustic sources are customarily defined as the distances within which received pulse levels are ≥180 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)for cetaceans and ≥190 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)for pinnipeds. These safety criteria are based on an assumption that lower received levels will not injure these animals or impair their hearing abilities, but that higher received levels might have a potential for such effects. Mitigation measures as discussed below would be implemented if marine mammals are observed within or about to enter these safety radii. However, Greene
(1987)reported SPLs ranging from 130-136 dB
(rms)at 0.2 km (656 ft) from the *Kulluk* during drilling activities (drilling, tripping, and cleaning) in the Arctic. Higher received levels up to 148 dB
(rms)were recorded for supply vessels that were underway and for icebreaking activities. As a result, SOI believes that the exploratory drilling and the activities of the support vessels are not likely to produce sound levels sufficient to cause temporary hearing loss or permanent hearing damage to any marine mammals. Consequently, standard mitigation as described later in this document for seismic activities including shut down of any drilling activity should not be necessary (unless sound monitoring tests described elsewhere in this document indicate SPLs at or greater than 180 dB). If testing indicates SPLs will reach or exceed 180 dB or 190 dB, then appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented by SOI to avoid potential Level A harassment of cetaceans (at or above 180 dB) or pinnipeds (at or above 190 dB). Mitigation measures may include reducing drilling or ice management noises, whichever is appropriate. However, SOI plans to use MMOs onboard the drill ships and the various support and supply vessels to monitor marine mammals and their responses to industry activities. In addition, an acoustical program and an aerial survey program which are discussed in previous sections will be implemented to determine potential impacts of the drilling program on marine mammals. Marine Mammal Observers The observer(s) (MMOs and Inupiat) will watch for marine mammals from the best available vantage point on the operating source vessel, which is usually the bridge or flying bridge. The observer(s) will scan systematically with the naked eye and 7 50 reticle binoculars, supplemented with night-vision equipment when needed (see below). Personnel on the bridge will assist the marine mammal observer(s) in watching for pinnipeds and whales. The observer(s) will give particular attention to the areas around the vessel. When a mammal sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded:
(1)Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, apparent reaction to seismic vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), closest point of approach, and behavioral pace;
(2)time, location, heading, speed, and activity of the vessel, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare;
(3)the positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the source vessel. This information will be recorded by the MMOs at times of whale (but not seal) sightings. The ship's position, heading, and speed, the seismic state (e.g., number and size of operating airguns), and water temperature, water depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever there is a change in any of those variables. Distances to nearby marine mammals will be estimated with binoculars containing a reticle to measure the vertical angle of the line of sight to the animal relative to the horizon. Observers may use a laser rangefinder to test and improve their abilities for visually estimating distances to objects in the water. However, previous experience showed that this Class 1 eye-safe device was not able to measure distances to seals more than about 70 m (230 ft) away. However, it was very useful in improving the distance estimation abilities of the observers at distances up to about 600 m (1968 ft)-the maximum range at which the device could measure distances to highly reflective objects such as other vessels. Experience indicates that humans observing objects of more-or-less known size via a standard observation protocol, in this case from a standard height above water, quickly become able to estimate distances within about plus or minus 20 percent when given immediate feedback about actual distances during training. In addition to routine MMO duties, Inupiat observers will be encouraged to record comments about their observations into the “comment” field in the database. Copies of these records will be available to the Inupiat observers for reference if they wish to prepare a statement about their observations. If prepared, this statement would be included in the 90-day and final reports documenting the monitoring work. Mitigation for Subsistence Uses The *Kulluk* and *Discoverer* , and all support vessels and aircraft will operate in accordance with the conditions of a CAA currently being negotiated with the AEWC. SOI notes that the CAA for SOI's drilling activity will incorporate all appropriate measures and procedures regarding the timing and areas of the operator's planned activities (i.e., times and places where effects of drilling operations will be monitored and prospectively mitigated to avoid potential conflicts with active subsistence whaling and sealing); communications system between operator's vessels and whaling and hunting crews (i.e., the communications centers will be located in strategic areas); provision for marine mammal observers/Inupiat communicators aboard all project vessels; conflict resolution procedures; and provisions for rendering emergency assistance to subsistence hunting crews. The CAA will also provide guidance toward mitigating any potential adverse effects on the bowhead whale subsistence hunts by member of the villages of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. Reporting The results of the 2007 SOI vessel-based monitoring, including estimates of take by harassment, will be presented in the “90 day” and final technical report(s)” usually required by NMFS under IHAs. SOI proposes that these technical report(s) will include:
(1)summaries of monitoring effort: total hours, total distances, and distribution through study period, sea state, and other factors affecting visibility and detectability of marine mammals;
(2)analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals: sea state, number of observers, and fog/glare;
(3)species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender categories, group sizes, and ice cover;
(4)sighting rates of marine mammals versus operational state (and other variables that could affect detectability);
(5)initial sighting distances versus operational state;
(6)closest point of approach versus seismic state;
(7)observed behaviors and types of movements versus operational state;
(8)numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus operational state;
(9)distribution around the drilling vessel and support vessels versus operational state; and
(10)estimates of take based on
(a)numbers of marine mammals directly seen within the relevant zones of influence (160 dB, 180 dB, 190 dB (if SPLs of that level are measured)), and
(b)numbers of marine mammals estimated to be there based on sighting density during daytime hours with acceptable sightability conditions. Comprehensive Report Following the 2007 open water season, a comprehensive report describing the proposed acoustic, vessel-based, and aerial monitoring programs will be prepared. The comprehensive report will describe the methods, results, conclusions and limitations of each of the individual data sets in detail. The report will also integrate (to the extent possible) the studies into a broad based assessment of industry activities and their impacts on marine mammals in the Beaufort Sea during 2007. The report will form the basis for future monitoring efforts and will establish long term data sets to help evaluate changes in the Beaufort Sea ecosystem. The report will also incorporate studies being conducted in the Chukchi Sea and will attempt to provide a regional synthesis of available data on industry activity in offshore areas of northern Alaska that may influence marine mammal density, distribution and behavior. This comprehensive report will consider data from many different sources including two relatively different types of aerial surveys; several types of acoustic systems for data collection (net array, passive acoustic monitoring, vertical array, and other acoustical monitoring systems that might be deployed), and vessel based observations. Collection of comparable data across the wide array of programs will help with the synthesis of information. However, interpretation of broad patterns in data from a single year is inherently limited. Much of the 2007 data will be used to assess the efficacy of the various data collection methods and to establish protocols that will provide a basis for integration of the data sets over a period of years. Plan of Cooperation
(POC)SOI notes in its IHA application that POC meetings occurred in Barrow and Nuiqsut on October 16 and 17, 2006, and follow-up meetings are planned for the period May or June 2007 in these communities. SOI conducted a meeting with the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation in Kaktovik on November 28, 2006, and will continue efforts with public and private organizations to hold additional meetings as needed in Kaktovik during 2007. Following these meetings, a POC report will be prepared. SOI also notes in its application that negotiations were initiated beginning September 2006 with the AEWC to create a drilling CAA between SOI, and the subsistence hunting communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik for the 2007 drilling program activities. The drilling CAA will cover both the proposed Beaufort Sea exploratory and geotechnical drilling programs. SOI and other industry participant operators, with AEWC, attended public meetings and meet with the whaling captains in the communities of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrow between January 29-February 1, 2007. These meetings initiated information exchanges with the communities on the potential, proposed open water seismic and drilling programs for 2007. Additional engagements with AEWC and the whaling captains of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrow will occur between these meetings and onset of open water activities in June/July of 2007. If requested, post-season meetings will also be held to assess the effectiveness of the 2007 drilling CAA, to address how well conflicts (if any) were resolved; and to receive recommendations on any changes (if any) might be needed in the implementation of future CAAs. Endangered Species Act
(ESA)NMFS has issued a biological opinion regarding the effects of oil-and-gas activities in the Arctic Ocean on ESA-listed species and critical habitat under the jurisdiction of NMFS. That biological opinion concluded that oil-and-gas exploration activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. A copy of the Biological Opinion is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS will also consult on the issuance of this IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to SOI for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of an IHA. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)The information provided in the Environmental Assessment
(EA)on the Proposed OCS Lease Sale 202 Beaufort Sea Planning Area by the MMS in August 2006 led MMS to determine that implementation of either the preferred alternative or other alternatives identified in the EA would not have a significant impact on the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement was not prepared by MMS. Preliminarily, NMFS has determined that the proposed action discussed in this document is not substantially different from the 2006 action. A final decision on whether to adopt the MMS EA as its own and issue a Finding of No Significant Impact, or to prepare its own NEPA document will be made by NMFS prior to making a final decision on the proposed issuance of an IHA to SOI for this activity. Preliminary Conclusions Based on the information provided in SOI's application and other referenced documentation, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of SOI conducting an exploratory drilling program in the U.S. Beaufort Sea in 2007 will have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammals. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the short-term impact of conducting exploratory drilling by two drilling vessels and by supporting vessels, including ice management vessels in the U.S. Beaufort Sea may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain species of marine mammals, including vacating the immediate vicinity around the activity due to noise from the activity. While behavioral and avoidance reactions may be made by these species in response to the resultant noise, this behavioral change is expected to have a negligible impact on the animals. While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals (which vary annually due to variable ice conditions and other factors) in the area of drilling operations, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small (as indicated in Table 6-2 in SOI's application). In addition, no take by death and/or serious injury is anticipated or would be authorized; there is a very low potential for an oil spill to result from the drilling activity, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is low due to the low SPLs associated with drilling and ice management activities. Also, Level B harassment takings are likely to be avoided through the incorporation of the monitoring and mitigation measures mentioned in this document and required by the authorization. No rookeries, mating grounds, areas of concentrated feeding, or other areas of special significance for marine mammals occur within or near the planned area of operations during the season of operations. At this time NMFS is unable to make a preliminary determination that SOI's proposed drilling program will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of bowhead whales. As SOI notes in its IHA application, there could be an adverse impact on the Inupiat bowhead subsistence hunt if the whales were deflected seaward (further from shore) in the traditional hunting areas north of Pt. Thomson in Camden Bay. NMFS believes that this could result in whaling crews being forced to travel greater distances to intercept westward migrating whales thereby creating a significant safety hazard for whaling crews (with a potential loss of life), limiting chances of successfully striking and landing bowheads, and/or not landing bowheads quickly before decomposition and spoilage occurs. Prior to issuing an IHA for activities that take place in Arctic waters, NMFS must ensure that the taking by the activity will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of marine mammals. In 50 CFR 216.103, NMFS has defined an “unmitigable adverse impact” to mean: an impact resulting from the specified activity:
(1)That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by:
(i)Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas;
(ii)Directly displacing subsistence users; or
(iii)Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and
(2)That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met. While SOI states that the potential impact will be mitigated by the application of mitigation procedures described in its application and implemented by a CAA between the SOI, the AEWC and the whaling captains' associations of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut and Barrow, the IHA application does not contain suggested measures to mitigate impacts on the fall bowhead subsistence hunt. NMFS presumes that SOI preferred to not make these measures public while it continued discussions with the AEWC and affected whaling captains (see Plan of Cooperation). Mitigation measures suggested publically include warm shutdown of drilling operations during the subsistence hunt and moving the drilling structures either further offshore or behind the barrier islands. Therefore, while SOI believes that the mitigation measures that will be implemented will minimize any adverse effects on whales and whalers, NMFS has not been provided an opportunity to make a similar determination. In its application, SOI states that it would provide results of its discussion of measures to reduce impacts to subsistence uses for bowhead whales this spring. NMFS encourages SOI to complete its negotiations quickly to ensure NMFS being able to make the determinations necessary under the MMPA within the time frames provided by the MMPA. Therefore, provided the mitigation measures contained in the CAA are agreed upon by the involved parties (which does not include NMFS) and provided publically during the public comment period, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to SOI for conducting an offshore drilling program in the U.S. Beaufort Sea in 2007, provided the previously mentioned monitoring and reporting requirements are incorporated. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed activity would result in the harassment of small numbers of marine mammals; would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stocks; and, subject to development of mitigation measures during discussions with interested parties, would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of species or stocks for subsistence uses. Dated: April 4, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6753 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 040507D] New England 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 New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Ad Hoc Sector Omnibus Committee (Committee) in April, 2007, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 26, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Ferncroft, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923; telephone:
(978)777-2500; fax:
(978)750-7959. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will continue development of sector programs and operational guidelines addressing the specific terms of reference issues provided by the Council. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at
(978)465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: April 5, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6715 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 040507C] North Pacific 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 North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Salmon Bycatch Workgroup will meet in Anchorage, AK. DATES: The meeting will be held on Friday, April 27, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Anchorage Hilton, 500 West 3rd Avenue, Lupine Room, Anchorage, AK. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Stram, Council staff, telephone:
(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will receive background information on salmon bycatch patterns, stock of origin information and methodology for establishment of previous catch limits for salmon species in the Bering Sea Aleutian Island trawl fisheries. Plans for development of Workgroup recommendations for options of catch limits (hard caps and trigger caps) by species during the May Workgroup meeting. 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 Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at
(907)271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: April 5, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6714 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 040507E] Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South 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 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting of its Rock Shrimp Advisory Panel and Golden Crab Advisory Panel, in Charleston, SC. DATES: The meetings will take place May 1-3, 2007. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Town and Country Inn, 2008 Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC 29407; telephone:
(800)334-6660 or
(843)571-1000; fax:
(843)766-9444. *Council address* : South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer; telephone:
(843)571-4366 or toll free
(866)SAFMC-10; fax:
(843)769-4520; email: *kim.iverson@safmc.net* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members of the Rock Shrimp Advisory Panel will meet from 1:30 p.m. - 5 p.m. on May 1, 2007, and from 8:30 a.m. - 12 noon on May 2, 2007. The Rock Shrimp Advisory Panel will meet jointly with the Golden Crab Advisory Panel from 1:30 p.m. - 5 p.m. on May 2, 2007. The Golden Crab Advisory Panel will meet from 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. on May 3, 2007. Both the Rock Shrimp and Golden Crab Advisory Panels
(APs)will receive the following presentations:
(1)an overview of the Council's Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP),
(2)deepwater coral habitats in the South Atlantic Region, and
(3)Vessel Monitoring Systems and electronic logbooks currently in use by the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. Following the presentations, advisory panel members will discuss and provide recommendations on the development of allowable gear zones and designations of deepwater coral areas as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) as alternatives to be included in the Council's Comprehensive Amendment to the FEP. The Rock Shrimp AP and Golden Crab AP will meet jointly to discuss common fishing areas. In addition, the Rock Shrimp AP will provide recommendations regarding the current “Use it or Lose it” provision for the rock shrimp fishery. The provision, created as part of a limited access program for the rock shrimp fishery through Amendment 5 to the Shrimp Fishery management Plan
(FMP)for the South Atlantic Region, states that if a limited access rock shrimp permit is “not active” during a 48 month period (4 calendar years) it will not be renewed and criteria will be applied to put the permit back in the limited access rock shrimp fishery. A rock shrimp limited access permit is defined as inactive when the vessel it is attached to has less than 15,000 pounds of documented rock shrimp harvest from the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ)within the South Atlantic Council's area of jurisdiction in a calendar year. The Rock Shrimp AP will also provide a description of the rock shrimp fishery and the royal red shrimp fishery for inclusion in the FEP. The Golden Crab AP will provide a description of the golden crab fishery for the FEP as well. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. 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 Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for` auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES ) 3 days prior to the meetings.Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change. Dated: April 5, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6716 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D.040407A] Marine Mammals; File No. 984-1814-01 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit amendment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. Terrie Williams, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Center for Ocean Health - Long Marine Laboratory, University of California, 100 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA, 95060 has been issued an amendment to scientific research Permit No. 984-1814. ADDRESSES: The amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): 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 Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Tammy Adams, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 15, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 7419) that an amendment of Permit No. 984-1814, issued June 21, 2006 ( 71 FR 37060), had been requested by the above-named individual. The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). Permit No. 984-1814 authorized the permit holder to capture up to 20 adult Weddell seals ( *Leptonychotes weddellii* ) and disturb up to 30 adult and 10 juvenile seals annually in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. The animals have a data logger/video system attached, muscle biopsies and blood samples collected, and blubber thickness measured. The permit also authorizes up to 3 research-related mortalities per year. The amendment changes the field season for this project from five August to December field seasons over 5 years to three back to back field seasons over the course of two research years. Researchers will capture 50 Weddell seals annually for 2 years instead of 20 annually over the course of 5 years. Researchers will attach data logger/video systems to 24 adult seals and another 24 seals will have time-depth recorders attached annually. Researchers will measure metabolic rates of all captured seals using open-flow respirometry. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Dated: April 5, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6752 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030507C] Marine Mammals; File No. 373-1868 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Point Reyes Bird Observatory
(PRBO)Conservation Science (Dr. William J. Sydeman, Responsible Party), 3820 Cypress Drive, # 11 Petaluma, CA 94954 has been issued a permit to conduct scientific research on pinnipeds in California. 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 Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 6, 2006, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 64943) that a request for a scientific research permit to take harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi), northern elephant seals ( *Mirounga angustirostris* ), California sea lions ( *Zalophus californianus* ), and northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). A permit has been issued to PRBO to conduct scientific research on pinnipeds. A maximum of 300 harbor seals and 3,050 elephant seals will be captured or handled per year over a five year period, and an estimated 300 elephant seals, 5,150 harbor seals, 600 California sea lions, and five northern fur seals per year will be incidentally disturbed during pinniped research operations. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Dated: April 4, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-6755 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trademark Financial Transactions ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-0043 comment” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Fawcett. • *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to Tamara McClure, Office of Finance, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-6345; or by e-mail to *Tamara.McClure@uspto.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Under 35 U.S.C. 41 and 15 U.S.C. 1113, the USPTO charges fees for processing and other services related to patents, trademarks, and information products. Customers may submit payments to the USPTO by several methods, including by credit card, deposit account, and electronic funds transfer (EFT). The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 41 and 15 U.S.C. 1113 are implemented in 37 CFR 1.16-1.28, 2.6-2.7, and 2.206-2.209. The USPTO is developing a pilot program that will allow customers to access and manage their financial activity records online. Customers will be able to create a Financial Profile through the USPTO Web site by registering a username and password, providing contact information, and specifying the types of notifications and alerts they would like to receive. After establishing a Financial Profile, customers may then add the relevant account information to the profile in order to track their credit card, deposit account, and EFT transactions with the USPTO. In the future, customers will also be able to use their Financial Profiles to perform transactions with the USPTO by using their previously stored account information. The Financial Profiles are being added to this information collection. II. Method of Collection By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or electronically to the USPTO. Information for Financial Profiles will be collected electronically through the USPTO Web site. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-0043. *Form Number(s):* PTO-2038, PTO-2231, PTO-2232, PTO-2233, PTO-2234, PTO-2236. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,929,205 responses per year, including 500 responses per year for Financial Profiles. *Estimated Time Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately two to four minutes (0.03 to 0.07 hours) to prepare and submit the existing items in this collection. The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately six minutes (0.10 hours) to complete and submit a Financial Profile. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 58,166 hours per year, including 50 hours per year for Financial Profiles. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $2,617,470 per year. The USPTO expects that 75% of the submissions for this information collection will be prepared by fee administrators/coordinators and that 25% of the submissions will be prepared by paraprofessionals. Using those proportions and the estimated rates of $30 per hour for fee administrators/coordinators and $90 per hour for paraprofessionals, the USPTO estimates that the average rate for all respondents will be approximately $45 per hour. Using this estimated rate of $45 per hour, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for submitting the information in this collection will be approximately $2,617,470 per year, including $2,250 in respondent cost burden for the Financial Profiles. Item Estimated time for response (minutes) Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Financial Profiles 6 500 50 Total 500 50 *Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:* $237,168. This collection is currently approved with a total of $237,168 in annual (non-hour) cost burden in the form of service fees for deposit accounts and returned payments, postage costs for mailing submissions to the USPTO, and recordkeeping costs related to electronic credit card payments and electronic deposit account replenishments. There are no additional annual costs associated with the Financial Profiles. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 3, 2007. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E7-6731 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). *Title:* Post Allowance and Refiling. *Form Number(s):* PTO/SB/44/50/51/51S/52/53/56/57/58 and PTOL-85B. *Agency Approval Number:* 0651-0033. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 68,245 hours annually. *Number of Respondents:* 224,926 responses per year. *Avg. Hours Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public from approximately 1.8 minutes (0.03 hours) to two hours to read the instructions, gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate form or other document, and submit the information to the USPTO. *Needs and Uses:* The USPTO is required by 35 U.S.C. 131 and 151 to examine applications and issue them as patents when appropriate. The applicant must then pay the required issue fee to receive the patent and avoid abandonment of the application. The USPTO can also correct errors in patents and reissue patents as appropriate. Under 37 CFR 1.510-1.570 and 37 CFR 1.902-1.997, the USPTO may grant requests for *ex parte* and *inter partes* reexamination proceedings. The public uses this collection to request corrections of errors in issued patents, to request reissue patents, to request reexamination proceedings, and to ensure that the necessary fees and documentation are submitted to the USPTO. The USPTO is adding two items to this information collection, an electronic version of the Issue Fee Transmittal (Form PTOL-85B) and a petition to request an extension of time in *ex parte* or *inter partes* reexamination proceedings. This petition is an existing requirement that was not previously covered in this collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, businesses or other for-profits, and not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-0033 copy request” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Fawcett. • *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before May 10, 2007 to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Dated: April 3, 2007. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E7-6735 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. PTO-P-2007-0014] Grant of Interim Extension of the Term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787; Sanvar® AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of interim patent term extension. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a certificate under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a third one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary C. Till by telephone at
(571)272-7755; by mail marked to her attention and addressed to the Commissioner for Patents, Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE., P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by fax marked to her attention at
(571)273-7755, or by e-mail to *Mary.Till@uspto.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 156 of Title 35, United States Code, generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review, and that the patent may be extended for interim periods of up to a year if the regulatory review is anticipated to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent. On March 23, 2007, Debiovision Inc., the exclusive agent of Debiopharm S.A. and Debio Recherche Pharmaceutique S.A., who is the exclusive licensee of the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund of New Orleans, Louisiana, the patent owner, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a third interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787. The patent claims the human drug product Sanvar® (vapreotide acetate). The application indicates that a New Drug Application for the human drug product Sanvar® (vapreotide acetate) has been filed and is currently undergoing regulatory review before the Food and Drug Administration for permission to market or use the product commercially. Review of the application indicates that except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the subject patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should be extended for an additional one year as required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). Because it is apparent that the regulatory review period will continue beyond the extended expiration date of the patent (April 25, 2007), a third interim extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate. A third interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787 is granted for a period of one year from the extended expiration date of the patent, i.e., until April 25, 2008. Dated: April 3, 2007. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E7-6698 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS Notice of Meeting The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 19 April 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion affecting the appearance of Washington, DC, may include buildings, parks and memorials. Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site: *http://www.cfa.gov* . Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date. Dated in Washington, DC, 4 April 2007. Thomas Luebke, Secretary [FR Doc. 07-1772 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 14
11 references not yet in our index
  • 15 CFR 295.2
  • 15 CFR 295.4
  • 15 CFR 295.6
  • 15 CFR 295.8
  • Pub. L. 108-360
  • 50 CFR 216.103
  • 50 CFR 216
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 37 CFR 1.16-1
  • 37 CFR 1.510-1
  • 37 CFR 1.902-1
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 278n
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 601
U.S.C.§ 1361
U.S.C.§ 1801
U.S.C.§ 4321
Cite15 CFR 295.2
Cite15 CFR 295.4
Cite15 CFR 295.6
Cites 25 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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