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 · 2007-10-02 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice of issuance of two incidental harassment authorizations

14,275 words·~65 min read·/register/2007/10/02/07-4883

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-807] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Intent To Reinstate Kolon Industries, Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 14, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) revoked in part the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET film) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) with respect to subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Kolon Industries, Inc.
(Kolon). *See Polythylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation in Part* , 61 FR 58734 (November 14, 1996) ( *Revocation* ). As the result of an adequate allegation from domestic interested parties in this proceeding, the Department, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), is now conducting a changed circumstances review to determine whether Kolon has resumed dumping PET film and whether the antidumping order should be reinstated for PET film manufactured and exported by Kolon. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea* , 72 FR 527 (January 5, 2007) ( *CCR Initiation* ). We preliminarily determine that Kolon has sold PET film at less than normal value
(NV)and that the order on PET film from Korea should be reinstated with respect to PET film manufactured and exported by Kolon. We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of PET film manufactured and exported by Kolon and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4475 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 5, 1991, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip From Korea* , 56 FR 25660 (June 5, 1991). On November 14, 1996 , the Department revoked the order with respect to Kolon after having determined that Kolon sold the merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of at least three consecutive years. *See Revocation* . The three administrative reviews forming the basis of the revocation are the June 1, 1992 through May 31, 1993, review; the June 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994, review; and the June 1, 1994, through May 31, 1995, review. The final results of the June 1992 through May 31, 1993, and the June 1993 through May 31, 1994, administrative reviews were published on July 5, 1996. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation in Part* 61 FR 35177, (July 5, 1996) ( *Second and Third Final Results* ). The final results of the June 1994 through May 31, 1995, administrative review were published on November 14, 1996. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation in Part* 61 FR 58374, (November 14, 1996) ( *Fourth Final Results* ). Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b) of the regulations in effect at the time, and as part of its request for revocation, on June 28, 1996, Kolon agreed to immediate reinstatement in the Order should the Department conclude that subsequent to the revocation, Kolon sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). (19 CFR 353.25(b) has been superceded by 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B).) However, the language in 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) is largely unchanged from 19 CFR 353.25. *See CCR Initiation* at 530. Due to allegations of resumed dumping submitted by DuPont Teijin Films (DuPont), Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. (Mitsubishi), and Toray Plastics America Inc. (Toray) (collectively DuPont, Mitsubishi, and Toray are the Petitioners), we initiated a changed circumstance review on January 5, 2007, 1 to determine whether Kolon has resumed dumping and whether we should reinstate the antidumping duty order for subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Kolon. *See CCR Initiation* at 528-9. 1 The initiation notice was signed by the Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration on December 27, 2006. On December 27, 2006, we documented our analysis regarding the reasonableness of the data presented by Petitioners in their allegations. See the December 27, 2006, “Initiation Checklist for the Changed Circumstances Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from Korea.” On January 4, 2007, we issued a questionnaire to Kolon. Kolon submitted its response to Sections A, B, C, and D of our questionnaire on February 28, 2007. On April 3, 2007, we issued our first supplemental questionnaire to Kolon. Kolon submitted its response to our April 3, 2007, questionnaire on April 30, 2007. On June 8, 2007, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Kolon to which Kolon responded on June 29, 2007. Based on our analysis of Kolon's home market and U.S. sales data, we preliminarily determine that Kolon sold PET film at issue at less than NV during the July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 period of review. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), the Department verified the cost of production (COP), constructed value (CV), home market sales, and U.S. sales questionnaire responses of Kolon. We conducted the COP/CV verification from August 6 to August 10, 2007. We conducted the home market and U.S. sales verification from August 11 to August 15. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of Kolon's facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the COP/CV and home market and U.S. sales verification reports for Kolon. For a further discussion, see Memorandum to the file through Neal Halper, from Ernest Gziryan (“COP/CV verification report”), and Memorandum to the File through Robert James, from Michael Heaney and Maryanne Burke (“Home market and U.S. sales verification report”.) Scope of the Order Imports covered by this review are shipments of all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. The films excluded from this review are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches (0.254 micrometers) thick. PET film is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS)subheading 3920.62.00. The HTS subheading is provided for convenience and for customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage. This changed circumstances review covers Kolon and the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 Basis for Reinstatement In requesting revocation, Kolon certified, pursuant to the Department's regulations, that it agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order, so long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Secretary concluded that subsequent to the revocation, Kolon sold PET film at less than NV. *See Revocation* at 58374. Under both 19 CFR 353.25(b) (the regulation in effect at the time the Department revoked the order with respect to Kolon) and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) (the current regulation governing revocation) as long as an antidumping duty order remains in force, an entity previously granted a revocation may be reinstated under that order if it is established that the entity has resumed the dumping of subject merchandise. In this case, because other exporters in Korea remain subject to the antidumping duty order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Korea, the order remains in effect, and Kolon may be reinstated in the order. The Department granted Kolon revocation based in part upon its agreement to immediate reinstatement in the antidumping duty order if the Department were to find that the company resumed dumping of PET film from Korea. *See Revocation* at 58374. As described in the “U.S. Price” and “Normal Value” sections, below, we have examined Kolon's response and have preliminarily found that Kolon's dumping margin for the review period is greater than *de minimis* . Accordingly, we preliminarily intend to reinstate Kolon in the antidumping order. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of PET film from Korea to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared Kolon's constructed export
(CEP)and export price
(EP)sales made in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers, to NV as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared individual CEP and EP sales to monthly weighted-average NVs. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act we considered all products produced by Kolon covered by the description in the “Scope of the Review” section, above, and sold in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We first attempted to compare contemporaneous U.S. and comparison-market sales of products that are identical with respect to the following characteristics: 1) specification; 2) thickness, 3) surface treatment, and 4) grade. Where we were unable to compare sales of the identical merchandise, we compared U.S. sales to comparison-market sales of the most similar merchandise based on the above characteristics. Where there were no sales of foreign like product to compare to a U.S. sale, we compared the price of the U.S. sale to constructed value (CV). Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the CEP or EP transaction. The NV LOT is defined as the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), as the sales from which selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit are derived. The EP LOT is defined as the starting price in the United States to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. With respect to CEP transactions in the U.S. market, the CEP LOT is defined as the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. *See* 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada* , 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8; *see also Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005); unchanged in *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil* , 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005). For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that if the claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that the LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. *See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review* , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 6 . We obtained information from Kolon regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported foreign market and U.S. sales to unaffiliated customers. Kolon provided a description of all selling activities performed, along with a flowchart and tables comparing the levels of trade among each channel of distribution and customer category for both markets. See Kolon's February 28, 2007 questionnaire response at A-3. For the home market, Kolon identified two channels of distribution described as follows: 1) direct shipments ( *i.e.* , products produced to order) and 2) warehouse shipments from inventory. Within each of these two channels of distribution, Kolon made sales to unaffiliated customers. *See* Kolon's February 28, 2007, questionnaire response at A-5. We reviewed the level at which Kolon performed each of these selling functions with respect to each claimed channel of distribution and customer category. For all of the activities listed (which included sales forecasting, strategic and economic planning, sales promotion, order processing, and technical assistance), the level of performance for both direct shipments and warehouse shipments was identical across all types of customers. Based on our analysis of all of Kolon's home market selling functions, we find all home market sales were made at the same LOT, the NV LOT. We also found that Kolon provided a similar level of selling functions on all of its EP sales, and that the level of these EP selling functions was comparable to the level of selling functions that Kolon performed on its home market sales. *Id* . Based on the foregoing, we determine that there is one level of trade on Kolon's EP sales and that the EP LOT is comparable to the HM LOT. Kolon also indicated it made CEP sales through its U.S. affiliate, Kolon USA. *Id* . We then compared the CEP LOT to the NV LOT. The CEP LOT is based on the selling activities associated with the transaction between Kolon and its affiliated importer, Kolon USA, whereas the NV LOT is based on the selling activities associated with the transactions between Kolon and unaffiliated customers in the home market. Our analysis indicates the selling functions performed for home market customers are either performed at a higher degree of intensity or are greater in number than the selling functions performed for Kolon USA. For example, in comparing Kolon's selling activities, we find there are more functions performed in the home market which are not a part of CEP transactions ( *e.g.* , sales promotion, inventory maintenance, sales and marketing support, customs clearance). For selling activities performed for both home market sales and CEP sales ( *e.g.* , processing customer orders, freight and delivery arrangements), we find Kolon actually performed each activity at a higher level of intensity in the home market. We note that CEP sales from Kolon to Kolon USA generally occur at the beginning of the distribution chain, representing essentially a logistical transfer of inventory that resembles ex-factory sales. In contrast, all sales in the home market occur closer to the end of the distribution chain and involve smaller volumes and more customer interaction which, in turn, require the performance of more selling functions. *Id* . Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage than the CEP LOT. Because we found the home market and U.S. sales were made at different LOTs, we examined whether a LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may be appropriate in this review. As we found only one LOT in the home market, it was not possible to make a LOT adjustment to home market prices, because such an adjustment is dependent on our ability to identify a pattern of consistent price differences between the home market sales on which NV is based and home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment. Because the data available do not form an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, and because the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. United States Price Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States.” Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.” For purposes of this changed circumstances review, Kolon classified all of its U.S. sales shipped directly from Korea to the United States as EP sales. Kolon reported all sales that were invoiced through its U.S. subsidiary Kolon USA as CEP transactions. For these preliminary results, we have accepted these classifications. The merchandise shipped directly to unaffiliated customers in the U.S. market was not sold through an affiliated U.S. importer, and we find no other grounds for treating these transactions as CEP sales. We, therefore, preliminarily determine that these transactions were EP sales. We have classified as CEP transactions the merchandise that was invoiced through Kolon USA because these sales were “sold in the United States” within the meaning of the Act. Export Price We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP on packed prices to customers in the United States. We made adjustments for billing adjustments and early payment discounts. We also made adjustments for the following movement expenses: foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. customs duties. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, for those sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser that took place after importation into the United States, we calculated CEP. We based CEP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments for billing adjustments and early payment discounts. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. customs duties. As further directed by section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activity in the United States including direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , commissions, warranties, warehousing, and U.S. credit expenses), inventory carrying costs, and other U.S. indirect selling expenses. Based upon our findings at verification, we used the verified amounts for brokerage and handling ( *see* Home Market and U.S. sales verification report at page 2), international freight ( *Id* . at page 23), inventory carrying costs ( *Id* . at page 2), and U.S. indirect selling expenses ( *Id* .). We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Finally, we made an addition to U.S. price for duty drawback in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared Kolon's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because Kolon's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. *See, e.g.* , Kolon's February 28, 2007 supplemental questionnaire response at Appendix A-1. B. Cost of Production Analysis Based upon a timely allegation from Petitioners that Kolon made sales below the cost of production during the POR, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. *See* letter from Ronald Meltzer to Department, dated July 19, 2006 at 15. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by Kolon. *See CCR Intiation* at 529. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of Kolon's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative expenses (G&A), and interest expenses. We relied on the COP information provided by Kolon except in the following three instances: First, during the POR, Kolon purchased PET chips used in the production of PET film. At verification, Kolon did not provide supporting documents showing how the cost of purchased chips was allocated to products, rendering the allocation of the purchased chips cost unverified. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, as partial facts available, we increased the reported cost of manufacturing of all products by the percentage representing the total cost of purchased chips in the total reported cost of manufacturing. *See* Cost Verification Report section V.C. and the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results. Second, we adjusted the reported G&A expense rate to disallow the offset for the gain on sale of certain assets. Third, we recalculated the interest expense ratio using a cost of sales denominator in which packing costs was removed. *See* Cost verification report at page 21. To determine whether Kolon's home market sales had been made at prices below the COP, we computed weighted-average COPs during the POR, and compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales prices of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices net of billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, any applicable movement charges, selling expenses and packing expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act, whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because:
(1)they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act; and
(2)based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Our cost test for Kolon revealed that, for home market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sales in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test also indicated that for home market sales of other models, more than 20 percent were sold at prices below the COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV. C. Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of Kolon's material and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. D. Price-to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers in Korea. We used Kolon's adjustments and deductions as reported. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons involving similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise compared pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS)in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses. As noted above in the “Level of Trade” section of this notice, we also made an adjustment for the CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. E. Price-to-CV Comparisons If we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006: Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percentage) Kolon 6.00% The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within ten days of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 39 days after the publication of this notice or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. Reinstatement and Suspension of Liquidation Since we have preliminarily established that PET film from Korea manufactured and exported by Kolon is being sold at less than NV, Kolon is hereby preliminarily reinstated in the antidumping duty order. We will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Kolon entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Furthermore, a cash-deposit requirement of 6.00 percent will be in effect for all shipments of the subject merchandise manufactured and produced by Kolon entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice. This requirement shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review unless the Department finds that Kolon has not resumed dumping in the final results of this changed circumstance review. The Department intends to complete this review within 120 days of the date on which it publishes the preliminary results of this changed circumstances review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), the final results of the changed circumstance review will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our results are based, a description of any action proposed based on those results, and our analysis of any comments received. This notice is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222. Dated: September 26, 2007. Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-19423 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-851] Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors From the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler at
(202)482-0189 or David Neubacher at
(202)482-5823; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Background On September 29, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on dynamic random access memory semiconductors (DRAMS) from the Republic of Korea, covering the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). On December 11, 2006, the petitioner, Micron Technology, Inc., alleged that the respondent, Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. (Hynix), received new subsidies. The Department published the preliminary results of this administrative review on September 10, 2007. *See Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 51609 (September 10, 2007). Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results We find that it is not practicable to complete the final results of this review within the original time limits. First, the Department intends to verify the responses of Hynix and the Government of Korea
(GOK)in November 2007. Second, the petitioner has raised several complex issues during this administrative review. For example, based on new factual information, the petitioner asked the Department to reconsider the timing of the benefit of a previously countervailed debt-to-equity swap. The petitioner also alleged in this review that Hynix received countervailable benefits from a duty reduction program on imports of equipment for factory automation. Because of the verification and the complexity of these issues, it is not practicable to complete this review by the original deadline of January 8, 2008. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results to not later than March 10, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 1 1 We note that Saturday, March 8, 2008, is 180 days after September 10, 2007, the publication date for the preliminary results. When a deadline falls on a weekend, the Department's practice is to use the next business day as the appropriate deadline. See Notice of Clarification: Application of "Next Business Day" Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Act, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Dated: September 25, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-19433 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB73 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Open Water Seismic Operations in Cook Inlet, Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of issuance of two incidental harassment authorizations. SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)as amended, notification is hereby given that Incidental Harassment Authorizations
(IHAs)to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting seismic operations in the northwest portion of Cook Inlet, Alaska, have been issued to Union Oil Company of California
(UOCC)and Marathon Oil Company
(MOC)for a period between September and November, 2007. DATES: The authorization for UOCC is effective from September 26 until November 15, 2007; and the authorization for MOC is effective from October 1 until November 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, IHA, Environmental Assessment (EA), supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA), and a list of references used in this document may be obtained by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one of the contacts listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289, ext 137, or Brad Smith, Alaska Region, NMFS,
(907)271-3023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or
(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. Summary of Requests On March 30, 2007, NMFS issued an IHA to UOCC under the authority of Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, to take by harassment small numbers of Cook Inlet beluga whales ( *Delphinapterus leucas* ), Steller sea lions ( *Eumetopias jubatus* ), Pacific harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina richardsi* ), harbor porpoises ( *Phocoena phocoena* ), and killer whales ( *Orcinus orca* ) incidental to conducting open water seismic operations in northwestern Cook Inlet, Alaska, between May 1 and June 15, 2007 (72 FR 17118, April 6, 2007). However, as a result of ice conditions in Cook Inlet during spring 2007, UOCC was unable to begin seismic operations planned for May. As a result, on May 17, 2007, UOCC requested that NMFS change the effective date of its IHA to the time period September 4 through November 15, 2007. On May 15, 2007, MMFS received an application from MOC requesting an IHA for the harassment of small numbers of Cook Inlet beluga whales, Steller sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales incidental to conducting open water seismic operations in portions of Cook Inlet, Alaska for the period from October 1 to November 30, 2007. Both proposed operations use an ocean-bottom cable
(OBC)system to conduct seismic surveys. OBC seismic surveys are used in waters that are too shallow for the data to be acquired using a marine-streamer vessel or too deep to have static ice in the winter. This type of seismic survey requires the use of multiple vessels for cable layout/pickup, recording, shooting, and possibly one or two vessels smaller than those used in streamer operations. The utility boats can be very small, in the range of 10 - 15 m (33 - 49 ft). A detailed description of the open water seismic surveys using OBC system was published in the **Federal Register** on January 5, 2007 (72 FR 536), and is not repeated here. The proposed operations would be active 24 hours per day, but the airguns would only be active for 1 - 2 hours during each of the 3 - 4 daily slack tide periods. The source for the proposed OBC seismic surveys would be a 900-in 3 BOLT airgun array situated on the source vessel, the *Peregrine Falcon* . The array would be made up of 2 sub-arrays, each with 2, 3-airgun clusters separated by 1.5 m (4.9 ft) off the stern of the vessel. One cluster will consist of 3, 225-in 3 airguns and the second cluster will have 3, 75-in 3 airguns. During seismic operations, the sub-arrays will fire at a rate of every 10 - 25 seconds and focus energy in the downward direction as the vessel travels at 4 - 5 knots (4.6 - 5.8 mph). Source level of the airgun array is 249 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m (0 - peak), and the dominant frequency range is 8 - 40 Hz. The geographic region for the seismic operation proposed by UOCC remains the same as published in the previous **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 536), which is in the northwestern Cook Inlet, paralleling the shoreline offshore of Granite Point, and extending from shore into the inlet to an average of about 1.6 km (1 mi). The geographic region for the activity proposed by MOC encompasses a 68.51 km 2 (26.45 square miles) area in lower Cook Inlet on the eastern shore, paralleling the shoreline for about 15.2 km (9.5 mi) and extending from shore into the inlet an average of about 6.1 km (3.8 mi). The approximate boundaries of the region of the proposed project area are 61°09′N, 151°30′W; 61°12′N, 151°34′W; 61°17′N, 151°25′W; and 60°16′N, 151°21′W. There are no major rivers flowing into the open water seismic project area. Water depths range from 0 to 15 m (48 ft), with most of the area less than 7.3 m (24 ft) deep. The proposed seismic operations would begin as early as October 1 and end by November 30, 2007. Comments and Responses A notice of receipt and request for public comment on the applications and proposed authorizations was published on August 10, 2007 (72 FR 45014). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received the following comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. (CPAI), and one private citizen. *Comment 1:* The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the IHA to MOC subject to various monitoring and mitigation stipulations. The Commission states that the seismic survey area proposed by MOC appears to be well to the south of the area that is used by Cook Inlet beluga whales during the period in question. And because a considerable portion of the survey is on land and the marine area to be surveyed is close to shore in shallow water, the Commission believes that the survey activities are not likely to lead to significant disturbance of beluga whales or other marine mammals. *Response:* NMFS agrees with the Commission's comments and recommendation that the IHA be issued to MOC subject to various monitoring and mitigation measures. *Comment 2:* The Commission recommends that NMFS defer changing the timing of the authorization for the UOCC survey until NMFS can demonstrate a clear temporal separation in the distribution of beluga whales and the seismic operations to ensure that beluga whales are not being taken in unanticipated ways or numbers and that any effects will, indeed, be negligible. The Commission expresses its concern that the requested delay in the UOCC project appears to increase the possibility that beluga whales will be in the survey area during the period in question. *Response:* NMFS has conducted extensive research and analyses before making its determination that the proposed seismic surveys by UOCC will have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammal species and stocks in the area. As stated in the **Federal Register** notice for the proposed issuance of the IHAs (72 FR 45014, August 10, 2007), NMFS is aware of the relative more frequent use by beluga whales in Granite Point during the proposed UOCC seismic surveys. Therefore, as an additional measure of marine mammal monitoring, NMFS requires that UOCC conduct aerial monitoring of Cook Inlet beluga whales in the vicinity of the project area during seismic surveys between September and November to ensure that beluga whales are not being taken in unanticipated ways or numbers and that any effects will be negligible (see Monitoring Section later in this document). *Comment 3:* CPAI urges NMFS to issue the IHAs to UOCC and MOC. CPAI states that seismic and other projects conducted over the 40 year span of oil and gas exploration and development in Cook Inlet demonstrate the industry's ability to operate, with minimal impacts, in a challenging environment. CPAI states that continued Cook Inlet exploration and development is needed to provide jobs and energy for South-Central Alaska's economy. *Response:* Comments noted. As stated in this document, IHAs shall be granted to UOCC and MOC if NMFS finds that incidental taking of marine mammals 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 if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. *Comment 4:* The HSUS urges NMFS to deny the IHAs per its comments provided in February 2007 on NMFS' proposed IHA issuance to CPAI and UOCC's seismic surveys in Cook Inlet. The HSUS states that impacts from this sort of noise is dangerous for the fragile stocks of marine mammals in Cook Inlet. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. NMFS has addressed HSUS's previous comments in its **Federal Register** notice for the issuance of two IHAs to CPAI and UOCC (72 FR 17118, April 6, 2007). The HSUS did not provide any scientific data or references to support its claim as the airgun noises in the proposed seismic surveys are “dangerous” to the marine mammal stocks in Cook Inlet. Detailed analyses of underwater noise, especially those from airguns, and impacts to marine mammals are provided in various documents related to the proposed projects. These include
(1)**Federal Register** notice for the issuance of IHAs to CPAI and UOCC (72 FR 17118, April 6, 2007),
(2)**Federal Register** notice for the proposed issuance of IHAs to UOCC and MOC (72 FR 45014, August 10, 2007),
(3)an EA for the CPAI and UOCC seismic surveys, and
(4)the draft SEA for the UOCC and MOC seismic surveys. All these analyses, which are supported by extensive scientific research and data, point out that the proposed seismic surveys in Cook Inlet will have negligible impacts on marine mammal species and stocks in Cook Inlet. *Comment 5:* A private citizen expresses her concerns that there is a threat of serious injury and mortality to marine mammals from the proposed seismic surveys. *Response:* As described in detail in a **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 45014) published on August 10, 2007, and in the draft SEA for the proposed action, NMFS has performed a thorough analysis on the levels of potential impacts to Cook Inlet beluga whales and four other species of marine mammals as a result of seismic operations in the upper Cook Inlet. Based on this analysis, which is supported by the best available scientific information, NMFS has come to the conclusion that only a few beluga whales, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales may be taken incidental to seismic surveys, by no more than Level B harassment, and that such taking will have a negligible impact on such species or stocks. No take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated or authorized, and harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of strict monitoring and mitigation requirements in the IHA. Please refer to the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 45014, August 10, 2007) and the SEA for a detailed description of the analysis. Description of the Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by the Activity Marine mammal species potentially occurring within the proposed action area include Cook Inlet beluga whales, Steller sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales. Among these species, only the Steller sea lion is listed as endangered under the ESA, and it is also designated as depleted under the MMPA. The Cook Inlet beluga whale is designated as depleted under the MMPA. General information for these species can be found in Angliss and Outlaw (2007), which is available at the following URL: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2007.pdf* . A more detailed description of these species and stocks within Cook Inlet is provided in the January 5, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 536) and is not repeated here. Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat Seismic surveys using acoustic energy may have the potential to adversely impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the activities (Gordon *et al.* , 2004). The sound source levels (zero to peak) associated with the OBC seismic survey can be as high as 233 - 240 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m. However, most energy is in the low-frequency spectra below 250 Hz and is directed downward (Richardson *et al.* , 1995), and the short duration of each pulse limits the total energy. Received levels within several kilometers typically exceed 160 dB re 1 microPa (Richardson *et al.* , 1995), depending on water depth, bottom type, ice cover, etc. Although relatively high levels of airgun pulses and frequencies above 500 Hz were detected at certain depths of water much further away during the Sperm Whale Seismic Study's controlled exposure experiments conducted in the Gulf of Mexico (DeRuiter *et al.* , 2006; Madsen *et al.* , 2006), this was probably due to the existence of convergence zones where long-range refraction occurred in a much deeper ocean with a critical depth and sufficient depth excess (Urick, 1983; Etter, 2003). Within the proposed project areas in Cook Inlet, where average water depth is less than 15 m (50 ft), no convergence zone can exist. Intense acoustic signals from seismic surveys have been known to cause behavioral alteration such as reduced vocalization rates (Goold, 1996), avoidance (Malme *et al.* , 1986, 1988; Richardson *et al.* , 1995; Harris *et al.* , 2001), and changes in blow rates (Richardson *et al.* , 1995) in several marine mammal species. The proposed surveys would use a 900-in 3 BOLT airgun array consisting of 3, 225-in 3 airguns and 3, 75-in 3 airguns. Acoustic measurements of the airgun array were obtained using calibrated, high-resolution Ocean Bottom Hydrophone recorders in April 2007 in Cook Inlet by JASCO Research Ltd (JASCO). The results show that the nominal ranges to the decibel thresholds 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 microPa rms, computed using the 90 percent fit equation, are 140, 454, and 3,027 m (or 459, 1,490, and 9,931 ft), respectively (Collins *et al.* , 2007). The seismic surveys would introduce acoustic energy into the water column and no objects would be released into the environment. The survey vessels would travel at a speed of 4 - 5 knots and the two projects would be conducted in a small area of Cook Inlet for a short period. There is relatively limited knowledge about the potential impacts of seismic energy on marine fish and invertebrates that are marine mammal prey. Available data suggest that there may be physical impacts on eggs and on larval, juvenile, and adult stages of fish at very close ranges (within meters) to a 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. Although eggs and larval stages are not able to escape such exposures, juvenile and adult fish most likely would avoid them. In the cases of eggs and larvae, it is likely that the numbers adversely affected by such exposure would be very small in relation to natural mortality. Studies on fish confined in cages that were exposed under intense sound for extended period showed physical or physiological impacts (Scholik and Yan, 2001; 2002; McCauley *et al.* , 2003; Smith *et al.* , 2004). While limited data on seismic surveys regarding physiological effects on fish indicate that impacts are short-term and are most apparent after exposure at very close range (McCauley *et al.* , 2000a; 2000b; Dalen *et al.* , 1996), other studies have demonstrated that seismic guns had little effect on the day-to-day behavior of marine fish and invertebrates (Knudsen *et al.* , 1992; Wardle *et al.* , 2001). It is more likely that fish will swim away upon hearing the approaching seismic impulses (Engås *et al.* , 1996). Based on the foregoing, NMFS finds preliminarily that the proposed seismic surveys would not cause any permanent impact on the physical habitats and marine mammal prey species in the proposed project area. Number of Marine Mammals Expected to Be Taken NMFS estimates that approximately 11 beluga whales and 3 harbor porpoises could be taken by behavioral harassment by the proposed UOCC seismic surveys, and approximately 26 whales and 6 porpoises by the proposed MOC seismic surveys. Thus a total of 37 Cook Inlet beluga whales out of a population of 302 whales could be harassed incidentally by the two proposed seismic operations from September to November, 2007, if no mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented. This represents 12.1 percent of the population. This number is based on the animal density, length of track planned, and the assumption that all animals will be harassed at distances where noise at received level is at and above 160 dB re 1 microPa rms. Beluga whale density (0.03 whale/km 2 ) was calculated by dividing the population
(302)by 50 percent of the surface area of Cook Inlet (19,863 km 2 , or 7,672 mi 2 ), assuming their distribution is limited to the upper portion of the Inlet (Hobbs *et al.* , 2005). The number of beluga whales that could be taken by both proposed seismic projects is calculated by multiplying the whale density by the total length of the track lines (57 km or 35.4 mi for UOCC and 146 km or 90.7 mi for MOC) and by twice the 160 dB isopleths range (3.0 km). This estimate is conservative as it assumes that all animals exposed to seismic impulses over 160 dB re 1 microPa would be harassed and disturbed. As the majority of acoustic energy of low frequency airgun impulses falls outside the beluga whale's most sensitive hearing range (Richardson *et al.* , 1995), it is most likely that only a portion of whales within the 160 dB re 1 microPa isopleth would be disturbed. In addition, it is also possible that many of the animals would be habituated to this level of acoustic disturbances. Furthermore, mitigation measures, including the ramp-up requirement during the initiation of the seismic operations (see below) should eliminate most, if not all, startle behavior from animals near the proposed project area. Therefore, NMFS believes that the actual number of Level B harassment takes of Cook Inlet beluga whale would be much lower than the estimated 37 whales. There are no similar population surveys for harbor seals, harbor porpoises, Steller sea lions, and killer whales conducted within the proposed project area. However, based on an abundance survey of harbor porpoises within the entire Cook Inlet (Dahlheim *et al.* , 2000), it is estimated that the population density of harbor porpoise in the entire Inlet is 0.0072 animal per km 2 . Based on this density data, NMFS estimates that about 9 harbor porpoises out of a population of 30,506 porpoises could be harassed incidentally by the two proposed seismic operations from September to November, 2007. This number of take represents less than 0.03 percent of harbor porpoises that could be taken by Level B harassment. Average counts were used to estimate take instead of density for harbor seals, since count data were available (Boveng *et al.* , 2005a; 2005b) but density data were not. Although no seals were counted in the vicinity of the proposed project areas, it is likely a small number of seals transit through the project areas in the fall. In order to account for seal occurrence in the proposed project areas, the count (1 - 10) at the location (Anchor Point) nearest to the MOC project area was used as the basis for calculating take. This count was quadrupled to account for seals in the water for both proposed project areas, since it is the conservative estimate of take, it is more likely to be high than low. Therefore, the estimated take of the Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor seals is 40 seals, which represent approximately 0.14 percent of the total population (29,175, Angliss and Outlaw, 2007). There are no density estimates available for Steller sea lions, harbor porpoises, and killer whales with in Cook Inlet. However, their appearance in Upper Cook Inlet is rare and none of these species were sighted in the upper Inlet during the 2004 survey (Rugh *et al.* , 2005). Therefore, NMFS concludes that the estimated takes of harbor seals and killer whales within the proposed project areas are significantly lower than those of beluga whales and harbor seals, and that it is unlikely there will be any incidental take of Steller sea lions as a result of the proposed seismic projects. Effects on Subsistence Needs Tyonek, which is predominately a Dena'ina Athabaskan community, is approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) east of the eastern boundary of the proposed UOCC project area, and is about 100 km (62 mi) north of the proposed MOC project area. While it is the only village that hunts beluga whales, Alaska natives unaffiliated with a Cook Inlet community who have moved to the region and visited the region also have historically harvested beluga whales in the Inlet (Mahoney and Shelden, 2000). The role of marine mammals in the subsistence economy of Tyonek and other Alaska natives has been diminished by the almost complete elimination of the harvest of Cook Inlet beluga whales because of their greatly reduced stock size. In recent years, Tyonek natives harvested one beluga whale per year and occasionally harbor seals (Huntington, 2000), but their primary source of red meat is moose (Foster, 1982). Salmon and other fish also contribute substantially to their subsistence diet (Foster, 1982). The Tyonek village announced (April 16, 2007) that they would not harvest any belugas in 2007 due to the status of the population. In addition, the project areas are not important subsistence areas for other subsistence species of marine mammals (harbor seals). Tyonek native subsistence activities have become focused closer to the village as more non-natives utilize and occupy traditional subsistence areas, combined with harvest regulation restrictions of beluga whales, changes in the abundance and distribution of subsistence resources, and other factors. Therefore, the proposed projects will have no significant effects on subsistence use of marine mammals in the proposed project areas. Mitigation The following mitigation measures are required under the IHAs that were issued to UOCC and MOC for conducting seismic operations in Cook Inlet. NMFS believes that the implementation of these mitigation measures will:
(1)result in the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; and
(2)ensure that no unmitigable adverse impacts on the availability of marine mammals species or stocks for subsistence harvest would result. Time and Frequency Seismic operations will be limited from September to late November in small portions of Cook Inlet. During the seismic operations, airguns would only be active for 1 - 2 hours during each of the 3 - 4 slack tide periods, with the vessel moving at a speed of 4 - 5 knots (4.6 - 5.8 mph). Establishment of Safety Zones The IHA holders will establish a 454-m (1,490-ft) radius safety zone for cetaceans and a 140-m (459-ft) radius safety zone for pinnipeds for the seismic operations. These safety zone radii are based on empirical measurements conducted by JASCO on the same airgun array operated in Cook Inlet, where the received sound pressure levels
(SPL)attenuated to 180 dB and 190 dB re 1 microPa rms, respectively. Safety zones will be surveyed and monitored prior to, during, and after the airgun seismic operations. A detailed description of marine mammal monitoring is described in the Monitoring and Reporting section below. Speed and Course Alteration If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius and based on its position and the relative course of travel is likely to enter the safety zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when practicable and safe, be changed to avoid the impacts to the animal. The marine mammal's activities and movements relative to the seismic and support vessels must be closely monitored to ensure that the animal does not
(1)approach the safety radius, or
(2)enter the safety zone. If either of these scenarios occurs, further mitigation measures must be taken (i.e., either further course alterations or power down or shut down of the airgun(s)). Power-down Procedures A power down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use so that the radius of the 180- or 190-dB zone is decreased to the extent that marine mammals are not in the safety zone. During a power-down, one airgun is operated. The continued operation of one airgun is intended to alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic guns in the area. If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety zone but is likely to enter the safety zone, and if the vessel's course and/or speed cannot be changed to avoid having the animal enter the safety radius, the airguns must be powered down before the animal is within the safety zone. Shut-down Procedures A shut-down occurs when all airgun activity is suspended. The operating airgun(s) must be shut down if a marine mammal approaches the applicable safety zone and a power down still would not likely to keep the animal outside the newly adjusted smaller safety zone. The operating airgun(s) must also be shut down completely if a marine mammal is found within the safety zone during the seismic operations. The shut-down procedure should be accomplished within several seconds (of a “one shot” period) of the determination that a marine mammal is within or about to enter the safety zone. Following a shut-down, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety zone. The animal is considered to have cleared the safety zone if it is visually observed to have left the safety zone, or if it has not been seen within the safety zone for 30 minutes. Ramp-up Procedures Although marine mammals will be protected from Level A harassment by establishment of a safety zone at SPL levels of 180 and 190 dB re 1 microPa rms for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, monitoring and mitigation may not be 100 percent effective at all times in locating marine mammals. In order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the project area by allowing marine mammals to vacate the area prior to receiving a potential injury, and to further reduce Level B harassment by startling marine mammals with a sudden intensive sound, UOCC and MOC will implement “ramp-up” when starting up airgun arrays. Ramp-up will begin with the smallest airgun in the array that is being used for all subsets of the 6-gun array. Airguns will be added in a sequence such that the source level in the array would increase at a rate no greater than 6 dB per 5 minutes. During the ramp-up, the safety zone for the full 6-airgun system would be maintained. Night-time Operations During night-time operations when the safety zone cannot be visually inspected, a single airgun will operate by firing every one minute whenever regular acquisition airgun operations are not occurring to keep marine mammals at a safe distance. If, during these non-recording times, this airgun is inactive for more than 30 minutes, operations will cease and all airguns will be shut down until the safety zone can be visually inspected and monitored for the absence of marine mammals. Monitoring Vessel-based Monitoring Vessel based monitoring will be conducted by at least two qualified NMFS-approved MMOs. Reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 Bushnell or equivalent) and laser range finders (Leica LRF 1200 laser range finder or equivalent) would be standard equipment for the monitors. Vessel-based MMOs will begin marine mammal monitoring at least 30 minutes prior to the planned start of airgun operations and during all periods of airgun operations. MMOs will survey the safety zone to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zone before a seismic survey begins. If marine mammals are found within the safety zone, seismic operations will be suspended until the marine mammal leaves the area. If a marine mammal is seen above the water and then dives below, the operator would wait 30 minutes, and if no marine mammals are seen by the MMOs in that time it will be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the safety zone. Observations will also be conducted during all ramp-up procedures to ensure the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure. When feasible, observations will also be made during transits, moving cable, and other operations when airguns are inactive. Data for each distinct marine mammal species observed in the proposed project area during the period of the seismic operations will be collected. Numbers of marine mammals observed, species identification if possible, frequency of observation, the time corresponding to the daily tidal cycle, their location relative to the airgun sound field's safety zone, and any behavioral changes due to the airgun operations will be recorded and entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. The accuracy of the data entry would be verified by computerized validity data checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program, and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, or other programs for further processing and archiving. Results from the vessel-based observations will provide:
(1)basis for real-time mitigation (airgun shut-down);
(2)information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS;
(3)data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted;
(4)information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity; and
(5)data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity. Aerial Monitoring In addition to vessel monitoring, seismic surveys that will be conducted off Granite Point between September and November by UOCC are also required to conduct aerial monitoring, due to the relative more frequent use by beluga whales in the area (Hobbs *et al.* , 2005). The aerial surveys will:
(1)collect and report data on the distribution, numbers, movement and behavior of marine mammals near the seismic operations on the westside of Cook Inlet between Tyonek and Trading Bay, with special emphasis on beluga whales;
(2)advise operating vessels as to the presence of marine mammals in the general area of operation; and
(3)support regulatory reporting related to the estimation of impacts of seismic operations on marine mammals. The aerial monitoring area will be centered on the UOCC project area plus a buffer for detecting belugas before or after they pass through the project area. The boundary for the aerial survey extends approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) east and west of the project area, between Tyonek and Trading Bay (directly east of the Trading Bay State Game Refuge boundary), and 0.25 mi (0.4 mi) from the water's edge, which will vary depending on tide levels. The size of the survey area provides a design for observing whales before and during exposure to seismic sounds. Aerial monitoring will be conducted from a single engine helicopter, which will fly a single transect line paralleling the shoreline along the coast in the project area. The aerial survey will begin from the northeast end and finish at the southwest end of the transect. This pattern will be flown unless observation conditions (glare, etc) require flying from southwest to northeast. The helicopter operations will be based out of Beluga or Shirleyville. The helicopter will fly at 1,500 ft (457 m), due to glide path needs, and at a ground speed of 60 knot (111 km/h). This altitude should prevent disturbance of marine mammals and birds by the helicopter noise. Helicopter monitoring will be conducted at a frequency that reflects the monthly occurrence of belugas in the project area (LGL, 2006). The helicopter will be flown once per week from the time the seismic operations begin until the project is completed. However, if beluga whales are observed by helicopter or boat in or near the project area, survey flights will be conducted daily until whales are not observed for two consecutive days. Once belugas are no longer observed for two consecutive days, surveys will again be flown once per week until the project ends. Aerial monitoring will fly 1 - 2 transects shortly before and one half of the survey transect will be flown once during seismic operations, whenever possible, in a given day. Half transects are limited in duration to prevent noise interference with seismic data acquisition. Half transect flight directions will be determined by the relative position of activities to the helicopter landing location. To the extent consistent with applicable aviation regulation, aerial surveys will be conducted under the following conditions:
(1)when the pilot considers it safe to do so;
(2)during daylight hours;
(3)during good viewing conditions (ceiling height above 1,500 ft (457 M) and Beaufort Sea States below 4; and
(4)during periods allowed by regulatory agencies. Flights will also be oriented to minimize sun glare on the observer. One NMFS-approved MMO will be on the helicopter observing and recording marine mammals, covering the 180° view in front of the helicopter. Space will be made available on the helicopter for NMFS staff to participate in surveys when possible. Data from aerial monitoring will be recorded on the species, number, group size, location (latitude/longitude), time, date, direction and angle from helicopter as determined by using a clinometer. Data will also be collected on tide, real time positions (latitude/longitude) of seismic survey vessel, shooting, and vessel activities. Observation conditions will be recorded at the start and finish of each survey or whenever conditions change. Data will be recorded on ceiling height, Beaufort Force, glare, and weather (snow, fog, etc.). All information collected during the marine mammal survey and/or reported to the vessel will be recorded on a field form. The information will be included with real time data on seismic activity (boat location, shooting, activities). Reporting Reports from aerial and land-based monitoring will be faxed or e-mailed to NMFS Anchorage Field Office on a daily basis. Reports from UOCC and MOC will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the respective projects. The reports will describe the operations that were conducted, the marine mammals that were detected near the operations, and provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The reports will also include estimates of the amount and nature of potential “take” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)In March 2007, NMFS prepared a final EA on the issuance of IHAs to ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc and UOCC to take marine mammals by harassment incidental to conducting seismic operations in upper Cook Inlet, Alaska. A Finding of No Significant Impact statement was issued on March 30, 2007. The proposed seismic operations in this document are similar to those covered in the March 2007 Final EA, with the only exception of project time frames, location, and the levels of estimated marine mammal takes. Therefore, NMFS has prepared a draft SEA which incorporates by reference the March 2007 Final EA, providing an analysis of project time frames, location, and potential environmental impacts, for public comments. During the 30-day public comment period NMFS did not receive any comments on the draft SEA. Subsequently, NMFS finalized the draft SEA and on September 24, 2007, issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on the proposed project. Endangered Species Act
(ESA)Consultation under section 7 of the ESA was conducted for the proposed issuance of UOCC and MOC's IHAs. As a result of that consultation, NMFS Anchorage Field Office concurred that the proposed seismic activities are not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. Determinations NMFS has determined that small numbers of beluga whales and harbor porpoises may be taken incidental to seismic surveys, by no more than Level B harassment. In addition, NMFS has determined that small numbers of Pacific harbor seals and killer whales, if present within the vicinity of the proposed activities, could be taken incidentally, by no more than Level B harassment and that such taking would result in no more than a negligible impact on such species or stocks. Although there are no estimated take numbers for Steller sea lions, harbor seals, or killer whales available due to their rare occurrence within the project areas, given the infrequent occurrence of these species (if at all), NMFS believes that any take of harbor seals and killer whales would be significantly lower than those of beluga whales and harbor porpoises. NMFS also believes it is unlikely that there would be any take of Steller sea lions due to their rare occurrence within the proposed project areas. While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the project period, may be made by these species to avoid the resultant visual and acoustic disturbance, NMFS nonetheless finds that this action would result in no more than a negligible impact on these marine mammal species and/or stocks. NMFS also finds that the proposed action will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. In addition, no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated or authorized, and harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures described in this document. Authorization NMFS has issued IHAs to UOCC and MOC for the potential harassment of small numbers of Cook Inlet beluga whales, harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and killer whales incidental to conducting seismic operations in the northwestern Cook Inlet in Alaska, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: September 26, 2007. Helen Golde Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-19438 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XC93 Gulf of Mexico 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 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene its Law Enforcement Advisory Panel (LEAP). DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 16, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Grand Hotel Marriott, 1 Grand Blvd., Point Clear, AL 36564; telephone:
(251)928-9201. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Richard Leard, Deputy Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will convene the LEAP to review a generic amendment that would potentially allow offshore aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico. The LEAP will also review Amendment 30A to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)that would establish restrictions on the harvest of gray triggerfish and a rebuilding plan for this overfished stock, as well as additional restrictions on greater amberjack to maintain its rebuilding target. Furthermore, the LEAP will review an Options Paper that will likely result in the development of Amendment 30B to the Reef Fish FMP to further restrict the harvest of gag and possibly relax some of the current restrictions on the harvest of red grouper. Finally, the LEAP will consider an options paper that could potentially result in the implementation of a limited access privilege program
(LAPP)for groupers and possibly other reef fish. The LEAP consists of principal law enforcement officers in each of the Gulf States, as well as the NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Coast Guard, and NOAA General Counsel. A copy of the agenda and related materials can be obtained by calling the Council office at
(813)348-1630. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the LEAP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the LEAP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take 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 Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: September 26, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-19372 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XC96 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), its Joint Dogfish Committee, Research Set-Aside Committee (RSA), Law Enforcement Committee, and Executive Committee will hold public meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 through Thursday, October 18, 2007. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the New Bern Convention Center, 203 South Front St, New Bern, NC 28563; telephone:
(252)637-1551. *Council address* : Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE 19904; telephone:
(302)674-2331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(302)674-2331, ext. 19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Tuesday, October 16, the Joint Dogfish Committee will meet from 10 a.m. until noon. The RSA Committee will meet from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. The Law Enforcement Committee will meet from 4 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. The Council will convene at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 17 and remain in session until 4:15 p.m. at which time the Executive Committee will meet until 5:30 p.m. On Thursday October 18, the Council will convene at 9 a.m. and remain in session until approximately 1 p.m. Agenda items by day for the Council's committees and the Council itself are: Tuesday, October 16 - the Joint Dogfish Committee will review and develop the Dogfish Monitoring Committee's recommendations regarding the 2008/09 fishing year quota and related management measures for Council consideration and action. The Research Set-Aside Committee
(RSA)will review the New England Council's policy for incorporation of research results into fishery management programs. The Law Enforcement Committee will review Fisheries Achievement Award
(FAA)nominations, recommend recipient(s) for that award recognition, and review the Council's Award Recognition Program Survey results. Wednesday, October 17 - the Council will swear in new and reappointed Council members and elect Council officers. The Council will receive a report by Dr. Jim Weinberg on the recent Monkfish Stock Assessment. The Council will consider adjustments to the current Monkfish Management Program and discuss the need for a new framework for the 2008 fishing year and if necessary initiate such a framework. The Council will review and discuss the Dogfish Committee's recommendations for the dogfish quota and related management measures for the 2008/09 fishing year and adopt the quota and related management measures for the 2008/09 fishing year and beyond. The Council will then receive a presentation by Dr. Mike Fogarty on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's current ecosystem activities. The Council will conduct its business session, receive organizational reports, receive the New England Council liaison report, the Executive Director's report, status of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Fishery Management Plans (FMP), and Committee reports. The Council will receive a presentation by Preston Pate on the NMFS' Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). The Executive Committee will then review the highlights of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act Workshop, review the highlights of the Northeast Regional Coordinating Council
(NRCC)meeting, and review the Council's proposed 2008 Annual Work Plan (AWP). Thursday, October 18 - the Council will convene at 9 a.m. to review and approve the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and public hearing document
(PHD)for Amendment 10 to the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish FMP which is intended to rebuild the butterfish fishery. The Council will then consider any continuing and/or new business. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, these issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during these meetings. Council 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 actions to address such emergencies. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Bryan,
(302)674-2331 ext. 18, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: September 26, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-19371 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XC94 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's (Council) Multispecies (Groundfish) Committee will meet to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, One Newbury Street, Peabody, MA 01960; telephone:
(978)535-4600. *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 items of discussion in the committee's agenda are as follows: The Multispecies (Groundfish) Oversight Committee will meet to continue development of Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. The Committee will review suggestions for changes to the effort control systems for common pool vessels. They will identify which suggestions will impact fishing mortality and may develop recommendations on those measures that should be pursued in Amendment 16. This discussion may include, but is not limited to, changes to the days-at-sea system, access to closed areas, trip limits, annual catch limits, etc. The Committee may continue its discussion of sector management issues. The Committee may also discuss other Amendment 16 issues. Committee recommendations will be forwarded to the Council for action at a future date. 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 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 (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: September 26, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-19369 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XC95 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 committee meeting. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee (SSLMC) will meet in Seattle, WA. DATES: The meeting will be held October 16-18, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Bldg 4, Room 2076, Seattle, WA. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Wilson, North Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SSLMC will initiate proposal analysis which will include the following steps:
(a)review 2001/02 Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives process and criteria;
(b)review applicable federal laws and orders (Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act);
(c)review jeopardy and adverse modification standards/criteria;
(d)review status quo critical habitat harvest data;
(e)adopt SSLMC goals and objectives;
(f)initiate proposal analysis using Outside The Model Considerations;
(g)review preliminary data sets;
(h)identify information needs and develop data requests. 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 This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen,
(907)271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: September 26, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-19370 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings Time and Date: 1:45 p.m., Friday, October 26, 2007. Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. Status: Closed. Matters to be Considered: Rule Enforcement Review. Contact Person for More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield,
(202)418-5084. David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 07-4883 Filed 9-28-07; 11:21 am]
Connectionstraces to 9
4 references not yet in our index
  • 19 CFR 353.25(b)
  • 19 CFR 353.25
  • 243 F.3d 1301
  • 50 CFR 216.103
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of issuance of two incidental harassment authorizations
C.F.R.§ 351.222
C.F.R.§ 351.307
C.F.R.§ 351.412
C.F.R.§ 351.411
C.F.R.§ 351.410
C.F.R.§ 351.221
C.F.R.§ 351.216
U.S.C.§ 1361
U.S.C.§ 1801
F. App'x243 F.3d 1301
Cite19 CFR 353.25(b)
Cite19 CFR 353.25
Cites 13 · 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.