Proposed Rules. Reopening of Comment Period for Proposed Rulemaking

41,068 words·~187 min read·/register/2008/02/21/08-784

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service 30 CFR Parts 250, 253, 254, 256 [Docket ID MMS-2007-OMM-0059] RIN 1010-AD11 Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way; Reopening Public Comment Period AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Reopening of Comment Period for Proposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action reopens the period for submitting comments on the proposed rule published on October 3, 2007.

That proposed rule requested comments on the revisions to Outer Continental Shelf pipeline and pipeline rights-of-way regulations. The comment period has been reopened to March 17, 2008. The MMS will hold a public meeting to discuss the proposed rule in the Gulf of Mexico Regional Office on February 22, 2008. DATES: The comment period for proposed rule AD-11, pipelines and pipeline rights-of-way published on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56442), is being reopened until March 17, 2008.

The MMS may not fully consider comments received after this date. *Public meeting date:* February 22, 2008, beginning at 8:30 a.m. *Public meeting location:* The meeting will be held at the Gulf of Mexico Regional Office, Minerals Management Service, Room 111, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70123-2394. All interested parties are invited to attend. A final agenda and meeting format will be posted on the MMS Web site at *http://www.mms.gov/* under Announcements/Workshops.

The MMS encourages written comments responding to this notice or the public meeting discussions. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the rulemaking by any of the following methods. Please use the Regulation Identifier Number

(RIN)1010-AD11 as an identifier in your message. See also Public Availability of Comments under Supplementary Information. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Under the tab “More Search Options,” click Advanced Docket Search, then select “Minerals Management Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “submit.” In the Docket ID column, select MMS-2007-OMM-0059 to submit public comments and to view supporting and related materials available for this rulemaking. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. The MMS will post all comments. • Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention: Regulations and Standards Branch (RSB); 381 Elden Street, MS-4024, Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. Please reference “Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way, 1010-AD11” in your comments and include your name and return address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Ensele, Regulations and Standards Branch at

(703)787-1583. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Industry has requested more time to review the proposal and submit comments. Commenters have specifically pointed to the comprehensive nature of the rule and the potential for jurisdictional conflicts between MMS and the Department of Transportation regulations as the reason for requesting additional time. The MMS has agreed to reopen the comment period to March 17, 2008. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: February 13, 2008. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. [FR Doc. E8-3201 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2005-ME-0008; A-1-FRL-8526-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maine; Open Burning Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Maine. This revision limits open burning of construction and demolition debris to on-site burning for the disposal of wood wastes and painted and unpainted wood, and adds restrictions to open burning conducted for training, research and recreational purposes. The revised rule also defines which open-burning recreational activities do not require a permit, such as residential use of outdoor grills and fireplaces, and recreational campfires while the ground is covered in snow. The revised rule eliminates provisions that allowed permits to be issued for open burning of rubbish where no rubbish collection is available or “reasonably located” and where “there is no other suitable method for disposal.” In addition, the revised rule includes a reference to reasonable precautions required by Maine statute 38 MRSA section 1296 to prevent the introduction of lead into the environment from lead-based paint. This action will have a beneficial effect on air quality in Maine by reducing emissions of particulate matter, air toxics, and other pollutants, especially from the burning of lead-painted wood, plastics, metals, and other non-wood materials. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2005-ME-0008 by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:*

(617)918-0047. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R01-OAR-2005-ME-0008”, Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number

(617)918-1684, fax number

(617)918-0684, e-mail *simcox.alison@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule located in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: January 16, 2008. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA, New England. [FR Doc. E8-3302 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 52 [WCB: WC Docket Nos. 07-243, 07-244; FCC 07-188] Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled Services Providers; Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on whether the Commission should extend local number portability

(LNP)requirements and numbering related rules, including compliance with N11 code assignments, to interconnected voice over Internet Protocol

(VoIP)providers, and whether the Commission should adopt rules specifying the length of porting intervals or other details of the porting process. DATES: Comments are due on or before March 24, 2008, and reply comments are due on or before April 21, 2008 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 07-243 and 07-244, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov* , and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. Include the docket number(s) in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking, WC Docket Nos. 07-243 and 07-244. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs* . For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Kirkel, Wireline Competition Bureau,

(202)418-1580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) in WC Docket Nos. 07-243 and 07-244, FCC 07-188, adopted October 31, 2007, and released November 8, 2007. The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone

(800)378-3160 or

(202)863-2893, facsimile

(202)863-2898, or via e-mail at *http://www.bcpiweb.com* . It is also available on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov* . Public Participation Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments regarding the Notice on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. All filings related to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should refer to WC Docket No. 07-243 or WC Docket No. 07-244. All filings made in response to the Notice section on interconnected VoIP provider numbering obligations should be filed in WC Docket No. 07-243. All filings made in response to the Notice sections on port request validation and porting intervals should be filed in WC Docket No. 07-244. Comments may be filed using:

(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),

(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or

(3)by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings* , 63 FR 24121 (1998). • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • ECFS filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for WC Docket Nos. 07-243 and 07-244. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov* , and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties should send a copy of their filings to the Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Room 5-C140, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail to *cpdcopies@fcc.gov* . Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,

(202)488-5300, or via e-mail to *fcc@bcpiweb.com* . Documents in WC Docket Nos. 07-243, and 07-244 will be available for public inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The documents may also be purchased from BCPI, telephone

(202)488-5300, facsimile

(202)488-5563, TTY

(202)488-5562, e-mail *fcc@bcpiweb.com* . Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. Through this Notice, the Commission considers whether there are additional number administration requirements that the Commission should adopt to benefit customers of telecommunications and interconnected VoIP services. First, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should act to extend other numbering-related obligations to interconnected VoIP providers. Second, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt specific rules regarding the LNP validation process and porting interval lengths. A. Interconnected VoIP Provider Numbering Obligations 2. The Commission seeks comment on issues associated with the implementation of LNP for users of interconnected VoIP services. The Commission also seeks comment on whether any of its numbering requirements, in addition to LNP, should be extended to interconnected VoIP providers. For example, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require interconnected VoIP providers to comply with N11 code assignments. The Commission already requires interconnected VoIP providers to supply 911 emergency calling capabilities to their customers whose service connects with the PSTN and to offer 711 abbreviated dialing for access to telephone relay services. Commenters should provide information on the technical feasibility of a requirement to comply with the other N11 code assignments. The Commission also seeks comment on the benefits and burdens, including the burdens on small entities, of requiring interconnected VoIP providers to comply with N11 code assignments or other numbering requirements. B. LNP Process Requirements 3. As the Commission has found, it is critical that customers be able to port their telephone numbers in an efficient manner in order for LNP to fulfill its promise of giving “customers flexibility in the quality, price, and variety of telecommunications services.” Although customers have had the option to port numbers between their telephone service providers for a number of years, the length of time for ports to occur and other difficulties with the porting process may hinder such options. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should take steps to mandate or modify certain elements of the porting process to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of LNP for U.S. telephone consumers. 4. The Commission finds this to be a significant concern both because of the statutory requirement to ensure “the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another,” as well as the important role intermodal providers play in telecommunications competition. Indeed, incumbent local exchange carriers

(LECs)have sought to rely on the presence of telephone competition from wireless providers and cable operators when seeking relief from regulatory obligations. To help enable such intermodal competition, and the deregulation that can result from such competition, it thus is important for the Commission to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of LNP, which “eliminates one major disincentive to switch carriers” and thus facilitates “the successful entrance of new service providers.” However, the Commission does not limit its inquiry specifically to intermodal LNP but seeks comment on the need for Commission requirements on LNP processes in other contexts as well. 5. The Commission's conclusion that carriers can require no more than four fields for validation of a simple port, and what information those fields should contain, addresses the consideration of the appropriate amount and type of information necessary to effectuate a port. The Commission seeks comments on how the information required for validation fields adopted by the Commission affects the validation process, including any other ways that those validation fields could minimize the error rates or further reduce the amount of information that a porting-in entity must request from the porting-out entity prior to submitting the simple port request. Further, the Commission seeks comment on any other considerations that it should evaluate in the simple port validation process. 6. The evidence in the record also shows that delays in the porting process can arise when the porting-out carrier fails to identify all errors in a Local Service Request

(LSR)at once. If a provider identifies errors one at a time, this necessitates multiple resubmissions of the LSR, and delays the porting process. The Commission agrees with commenters such as AT&T that it may not be possible for providers to identify all errors at once, although the porting process will proceed most efficiently if providers identify as many errors as possible at a given time. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a requirement that carriers identify all errors possible in a given LSR and describe the basis for rejection when rejecting a port request. 7. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the benefits and burdens, including the burdens on small entities, of the specific requirements on the validation process proposed above, and any other such requirements. 8. *Porting Intervals.* The Commission tentatively concludes that it should adopt rules reducing the porting interval for simple port requests. The Commission seeks comment on that tentative conclusion, and on it should establish time limits on the porting process for all types of simple port requests (i.e., wireline-to-wireline ports, wireless-to-wireless ports, and intermodal ports) or just certain types of ports. The wireless industry has established a voluntary standard of two and one-half hours for wireless-to-wireless ports. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a rule codifying this standard. 9. The Commission also tentatively concludes that it should adopt rules reducing the porting interval for wireline-to-wireline and intermodal simple port requests, specifically, to a 48-hour porting interval. As noted above, the wireless industry has been successful in streamlining the validation process for wireless-to-wireless porting, and the Commission encourages the industry to evaluate whether similar streamlining measures would work for intermodal or wireline-to-wireline porting. The Commission notes, moreover, that pending resolution of this rulemaking proceeding, providers remain free to seek enforcement action against a porting-out carrier that requests validation information that appears to obstruct or delay the porting process. 10. For wireline-to-wireline simple ports, the Commission adopted the NANC's 1997 recommendation of a four business day porting interval. This four-day interval also applies to wireline-to-wireless intermodal simple ports. It has been over ten years since the Commission reassessed the porting interval for wireline-to-wireline ports, and commenters suggest that advances in technology allow for the four-day porting interval to be reduced. For intermodal porting intervals, the Commission has twice sought comment on whether the porting interval could be reduced. Most recently, the Commission specifically sought comment on detailed NANC proposals for shortening the intermodal porting interval, which included specific timelines for the porting process. 11. While some commenters advocate retaining the current porting intervals, other providers assert that shorter intervals are possible. For example, Comcast asserts that a “next day” standard for wireline ports that, in most cases, would not exceed 36 hours is more appropriate in light of technological advancements and recent competitive developments. Other commenters recommend refreshing the record in the *Intermodal Number Portability FNPRM* (68 FR 68831, Dec. 10, 2003) and considering the NANC's proposal that would effectively reduce the porting interval to 53 hours. Commenters seeking shorter intervals point out the benefits to consumers and competition arising when ports can occur more quickly. 12. Given that the industry has been unable to reach consensus on an updated industry standard for wireline-to-wireline and intermodal simple ports, the Commission tentatively concludes that it should adopt rules regarding a reduced porting interval and allow the industry to work through the actual implications of such a timeline. In particular, the Commission tentatively concludes that it should adopt a 48-hour porting interval, as it falls between the range of proposed shorter intervals. In setting this interval, the Commission hopes to encourage industry discussion and consensus. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusions, and whether there are any technical impediments or advances that affect the overall length of the porting interval such that it should adopt different porting intervals for particular types of simple ports (e.g., wireline-to-wireline, wireline-to-wireless, wireless-to-wireline). Further, the Commission seeks comment on how it should define the various porting interval timelines in terms of operating hours. 13. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the benefits and burdens, including the burdens on small entities, of adopting rules regarding porting intervals for all types of simple port requests. 14. The Commission encourages interested parties to take into account the fact that as technologies and business practices evolve, it expects that the porting interval would decrease in order to provide consumers as quick and efficient a porting process as possible. The Commission looks forward to a complete record on the appropriate porting interval consistent with the shortest reasonable time period. 15. *Other LNP Process Issues.* Commenters identify a number of other concerns regarding the LNP process that they assert are hindering the ability of consumers to take advantage of LNP. For example, Charter comments that certain carriers' processes result in cancellation of a subscriber dial tone for port requests that are delayed for operational reasons. Charter also argues that carriers should be:

(1)Required to provide the basis for rejecting a port request at the time of that rejection;

(2)required to provide affirmative notice of all changes to their porting requirements and process; and

(3)prohibited from making ad hoc changes to their procedures. Charter also argues that the Commission should declare that interconnection agreements are not a necessary precondition to effectuating wireline-to-wireline ports. The Commission seeks comment on these and any other concerns regarding the LNP process more generally, including the port validation process and porting intervals for non-simple ports. C. New Dockets 16. In this Notice, the Commission opens two new dockets—WC Docket No. 07-243 and WC Docket No. 07-244. All filings made in response to the Notice section on interconnected VoIP provider numbering obligations should be filed in WC Docket No. 07-243. All filings made in response to the Notice sections on port request validation and porting intervals should be filed in WC Docket No. 07-244. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared the present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on small entities that might result from this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the Notice and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 2. In this Notice, the Commission considers whether there are additional numbering-related requirements the Commission should adopt to benefit customers of telecommunications and interconnected VoIP services. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should extend other LNP requirements and numbering-related rules, including compliance with N11 code assignments, to interconnected VoIP providers. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt rules specifying the length of the porting intervals or other changes to the LNP validation process, or other details of the porting process. Among other things, the Commission tentatively concludes that it should adopt rules reducing the porting interval for wireline-to-wireline and intermodal simple port requests, specifically, to a 48-hour porting interval. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusions and issues related to its tentative conclusions. For each of these issues, the Commission also seeks comment on the burdens, including those placed on small carriers, associated with corresponding Commission rules related to each issue. B. Legal Basis 3. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this Notice is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 251 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) through (j), 251, 303(r). C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules May Apply 4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and

(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 5. *Small Businesses.* Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. 6. *Small Organizations.* Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small organizations. 7. *Small Governmental Jurisdictions.* The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small. 1. Telecommunications Service Entities a. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers 8. The Commission has included small incumbent local exchange carriers

(LECs)in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although the Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 9. *Incumbent LECs.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by the Commission's action. 10. *Competitive LECs, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers.”* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 859 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive LEC services. Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.” Of the 44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities. 11. *Local Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 184 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an estimated 181 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action. 12. *Toll Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 853 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 28 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action. 13. *Payphone Service Providers (PSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 657 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these, an estimated 653 have 1,500 or fewer employees and four have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action. 14. *Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 330 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 309 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 21 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action. 15. *Operator Service Providers (OSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 23 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action. 16. *Prepaid Calling Card Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 104 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, 102 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that all or the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action. 17. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.* These toll-free services fall within the broad economic census category of Telecommunications Resellers. This category “comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,646 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,642 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and four firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small. Additionally, it may be helpful to know the total numbers of telephone numbers assigned in these services. Commission data show that, as of June 2006, the total number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,647,941, the total number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,318,667, the total number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,431,162, and the total number of 866 numbers assigned was 6,008,976. b. International Service Providers 18. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census categories of “Satellite Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under both categories, such a business is small if it has $13.5 million or less in average annual receipts. 19. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by the Commission's action. 20. The second category of Other Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in

(1)providing specialized telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or

(2)providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 259 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by the Commission's action. c. Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers 21. Below, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 22. *Wireless Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under both SBA categories, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. 23. *Cellular Licensees.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census category “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to Commission data, 437 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio

(SMR)Telephony services, which are placed together in the data. The Commission has estimated that 260 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. 24. *Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the broad economic census category of “Paging.” Under this category, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. In addition, according to Commission data, 365 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of “Paging and Messaging Service.” Of this total, the Commission estimates that 360 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and five have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, in this category the majority of firms can be considered small. 25. The Commission also notes that, in the *Paging Second Report and Order* (62 FR 11616, Mar. 12, 1997), the Commission adopted a size standard for “small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. In this context, a small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved this definition. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area

(MEA)licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won 440 licenses. An auction of MEA and Economic Area

(EA)licenses commenced on October 30, 2001, and closed on December 5, 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold. One hundred thirty-two companies claiming small business status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874 licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs commenced on May 13, 2003, and closed on May 28, 2003. Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business status won 2,093 licenses. The Commission also notes that, currently, there are approximately 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. 26. *Wireless Telephony.* Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio

(SMR)telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony. The Commission has estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. 27. *Broadband Personal Communications Service.* The broadband Personal Communications Service

(PCS)spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined “small entity” for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.” These standards defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as “small” or “very small” businesses. Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. 28. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services.* The Commission held an auction for Narrowband PCS licenses that commenced on July 25, 1994, and closed on July 29, 1994. A second auction commenced on October 26, 1994 and closed on November 8, 1994. For purposes of the first two Narrowband PCS auctions, “small businesses” were entities with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. Through these auctions, the Commission awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small businesses. To ensure meaningful participation by small business entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the *Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order* (65 FR 35875, Jun. 6, 2000). A “small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A “very small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. A third auction commenced on October 3, 2001 and closed on October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses. Three of these claimed status as a small or very small entity and won 311 licenses. 29. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). The Commission uses the SBA's small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 30. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission will use SBA's small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA small business size standard. 31. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service.* This service operates on several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission is unable to estimate at this time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 2. Cable and OVS Operators 32. *Cable Television Distribution Services.* Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services the Commission must, however, use current census data that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard; that size standard was: All such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small. 33. *Cable Companies and Systems.* The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size standard, most cable systems are small. 34. *Cable System Operators.* The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard. The Commission notes that it neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore it is unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard. 35. *Open Video Systems (OVS).* In 1996, Congress established the open video system

(OVS)framework, one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers (LECs). The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard of Cable and Other Program Distribution Services, which consists of such entities having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified 25 OVS operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service providers

(BSPs)are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. As of June, 2005, BSPs served approximately 1.4 million subscribers, representing 1.5 percent of all MVPD households. Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN), which serves about 371,000 subscribers as of June, 2005, is currently the largest BSP and 14th largest MVPD. RCN received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC and other areas. The Commission does not have financial information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. The Commission thus believes that at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities. 3. Internet Service Providers 36. *Internet Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs “provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or software consulting related to Internet connectivity.” Under the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual receipts of $23 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 2,437 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 47 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action. 37. *All Other Information Services.* “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing other information services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives).” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $6.5 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 155 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 138 had annual receipts of under $5 million, and an additional four firms had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action. 4. Equipment Manufacturers 38. SBA small business size standards are given in terms of “firms.” Census Bureau data concerning computer manufacturers, on the other hand, are given in terms of “establishments.” The Commission notes that the number of “establishments” is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence in this context than would be the number of “firms” or “companies,” because the latter take into account the concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be owned by a different establishment. Thus, the census numbers provided below may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in the given category, including the numbers of small businesses. 39. *Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.* The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 40. *Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing.* The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and data communications equipment. These products may be standalone or board-level components of a larger system. Examples of products made by these establishments are central office switching equipment, cordless telephones (except cellular), PBX equipment, telephones, telephone answering machines, LAN modems, multi-user modems, and other data communications equipment, such as bridges, routers, and gateways.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 518 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 511 had employment of under 1,000, and an additional 7 had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 41. *Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing.* Examples of manufactured devices in this category include “integrated circuits, memory chips, microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and other optoelectronic devices.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 1,032 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 950 had employment of under 500, and 42 establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities. 42. *Computer Storage Device Manufacturing.* These establishments manufacture “computer storage devices that allow the storage and retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, or magnetic/optical media.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 170 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 164 had employment of under 500, and five establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 43. Should the Commission decide to adopt any further numbering requirements to benefit customers of telecommunications and interconnected VoIP service, the associated rules potentially could modify the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of certain telecommunications providers and interconnected VoIP service providers. For example, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require interconnected VoIP providers to comply with N11 code assignments. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a requirement that carriers identify all errors possible in a given LSR and describe the basis for rejection when rejecting a port request. The Commission also tentatively concludes that it should adopt rules reducing the porting interval for wireline-to-wireline and intermodal simple port requests, specifically to a 48-hour porting interval, and seeks comment on whether the Commission should establish time limits on the porting process for all types of simple port requests or just certain types of ports. Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are any technical impediments or advances that affect the overall length of the porting interval such that it should adopt different porting intervals for particular types of simple ports. These proposals may impose additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements on entities. Also, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of these proposals place burdens on small entities, and whether alternatives might lessen such burdens while still achieving the goals of this proceeding. Entities, especially small businesses, are encouraged to quantify the costs and benefits or any reporting requirement that may be established in this proceeding. E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 44. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives:

(1)The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;

(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and

(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 45. The Commission's primary objective is to ensure that that consumers benefit from LNP. The Commission seeks comment on the burdens, including those placed on small carriers, associated with related Commission rules and whether the Commission should adopt different requirements for small businesses. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the benefits and burdens, including the burdens on small entities, of requiring interconnected VoIP providers to comply with N11 code assignments and other numbering requirements. The Commission also seeks comment on the benefits and burdens, including the burdens on small entities, of the specific requirements on the validation process proposed in the Notice and any other such requirements. Further, the Commission seeks comment on the benefits and burdens, including the burdens on small entities, of adopting rules regarding porting intervals for all types of simple port requests. F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 46. None. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 47. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Ordering Clauses *It is ordered* that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 251, 303(r), the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket Nos. 07-243 and 07-244 is adopted. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, Order on Remand, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the two Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3129 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 08-274; MB Docket No. 08-12; RM-11414] Radio Broadcasting Services; Dededo, GU AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed by Moy Communications, Inc. (“Petitioner”) proposing the allotment of Channel 243C1 at Dededo, Guam, as the second local aural transmission service at Dededo. The proposed coordinates are 13-29-17 NL and 144-49-35 WL, with a site restriction of 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) south of Dededo, Guam. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 24, 2008, and reply comments on or before April 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the Petitioner's counsel as follows: Michael D. Basile, Esq., DOW LOHNES PLLC; 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800; Washington, DC 20036. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* , MB Docket No. 08-12, adopted January 30, 2008, and released February 1, 2008. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *www.BCPIWEB.com* . This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. *See* 47 CFR Section 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contact. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, *see* 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Guam, is amended by adding Dededo, Channel 243C1. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-3225 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 73 35 Thursday, February 21, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 14, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Office of the Chief Economist *Title:* Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement. *OMB Control Number:* 0503-0011. *Summary of Collection:* Section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) of 2002 provides for a preferred procurement program under which Federal agencies are required to purchase biobased products, with certain exceptions. Items (which are generic groupings of products) are designated by rulemaking for preferred procurement. To qualify items for procurement under this program, the statute requires that the Secretary of Agriculture consider information on the availability of items, the economic and technological feasibility of using such items and the life cycle costs of using such items. In addition, the Secretary is required to provide information on designated items to Federal agencies about the availability, relative price, performance, and environmental and public health benefits of such items and where appropriate shall recommend the level of biobased material to be contained in the procured product. *Need and Use of the Information:* The Office of Energy Policy and New Uses (OEPNU) and the Center for Industrial Research and Service at Iowa State University will interact with manufacturers and venders to gather such information and material for testing, as may be required for designation of items for preferred procurement by Federal agencies. The information collected will be gathered using a variety of methods, including face to face visits with a manufacturer or vendor, submission by manufacturers and vendors of information electronically to OEPNU, and survey instruments filled out by manufacturers and vendors and submitted to OEPNU. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 138. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (once). *Total Burden Hours:* 14,387. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-3168 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-GL-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 14, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service *Title:* Potato Cyst Nematode; Quarantine and Regulations. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0322. *Summary of Collection:* Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, or movement of plants and plant pests to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amended the “Domestic Quarantine Notices” in 7 CFR Part 301 by adding a new subpart, “Potato Cyst Nematode (PCN).” PCN is a soil-borne pest and is typically spread by the movement of infested soil, either soil itself or soil adhering to plants, farm equipment, or other articles. *Need and Use of the Information:* APHIS will collect information using certificates or limited permits and compliance agreements to prevent the spread of PCN and to ensure that regulated articles can be moved safely from the quarantined area without spreading PCN. *Description of Respondents:* Farms; business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 400. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 822. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-3169 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 14, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(FSA)Aerial Photography Field Office

(APFO)has the authority to coordinate aerial photography work in USDA, develop and carry out aerial photography and remote sensing programs and the Agency's aerial photography flying contract programs. The film APFO secures is public domain and reproductions are available at cost to any customer with a need. The FSA-441, Request for Aerial Imagery, is the form APFO supplies to its customers when placing an order for aerial photography products and services. *Need and Use of the Information:* FSA will collect the name, address, contact name, telephone, fax, e-mail, customer code, agency code, purchase order number, credit card number/exp. date and amount remitted/PO amount. Customers have the option of placing orders by mail, fax, telephone, walk-in or floppy disk. Furnishing this information requires the customer to research and prepare their request before submitting it to APFO. *Description of Respondents:* Farms; Individuals or household; business or other for-profit; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government; not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 4,500. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting; other (when ordering). *Total Burden Hours:* 3,100. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-3170 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Dixie National Forest, UT; Tropic to Hatch 138kV Transmission Line Project AGENCY: Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Forest Supervisor of the Dixie National Forest gives notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to address potential effects of a proposed project by Garkane Energy Cooperative (Garkane) to construct, operate and maintain a 138 kilovolt

(kV)electric transmission line requiring a Special Use Authorization, Grant of Right-of-Way, and/or Special Use Permit for a Right-of-Way. The proposed project will include the construction of a 138kV transmission line, associated substations, access roads and the removal and reclamation of a portion of the existing transmission line. The proposed action would cross lands administered by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, State and private. If approved, the proposed project would require amending the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan to allow a utility right-of-way in the primitive management zone adjacent to an existing utility right-of-way. Dependant upon the final location of the transmission line alignment, the Dixie National Forest Plan may need amending to adjust or modify the scenic integrity objectives. The Dixie National Forest will serve as the lead agency. The National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management Kanab Field Office and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument will participate as cooperating agencies, and each agency will issue separate decisions based on the analysis. The Utah State Institutional Trust Lands have been invited as a cooperating agency. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received within 30 days from date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** to be most useful. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is scheduled for release in spring 2009, and the Final Environmental Impact Statement is scheduled for completion in summer 2009. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Ms. Susan Baughman, Dixie National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Tropic to Hatch 138kV Transmission Line Project EIS Project Leader, 1789 N. Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, UT 84720. Phone:

(435)865-3700; Fax:

(435)865-3791; E-mail: *tropic_to_hatch_transmission_line_eis_comments@fs.fed.us* . E-mailed comments must be submitted in MS Word (*.doc) or rich text format (*.rtf) and should include the project name in the subject line. Written comments may also be submitted at the above address during regular business hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday-Friday. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Susan Baughman, Tropic to Hatch 138kV Transmission Line Project, EIS Project Leader, Dixie National Forest (contact information listed above). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Garkane delivers propane and electric service to more than 11,000 customers in northern Arizona and southern Utah including the project area. Growth in Garfield and Kane counties has increased electrical demand. Garkane, which owns, operates and maintains the electric delivery systems in this area, has found the existing system insufficient to meet electrical demand without the operation of temporary diesel generators. The proposed project involves the construction, operation and maintenance of a 138kV transmission line from Tropic to Hatch in Garfield County, Utah, and a new substation and expansion of the Hatch Substation to serve existing and planned electric loads in the region. Currently a 138kV transmission line provides connection from the Glen Canyon Dam to the Tropic area; however, only a 69kV transmission line provides connection between the Tropic and Hatch substations. The 69kV transmission system is Garkane's main electrical supply to the area west of Tropic and is insufficent to provide power equal to the electrical demand in that area. The existing 69kV electrical transmission system is operating at its capacity and cannot be modified to carry higher voltages due to physical limitations of the pole structures. The proposed 138kV electrical system improvement would provide a cost-effective solution to adequately address current demands and provide capacity for the foreseeable future. A special use authorization and right-of-way must be acquired or amended to allow the construction, maintenance and operation of the new transmission line. Substations would be developed on private land as part of the project. The new transmission line will be a single 138kV circuit supported by wood pole H-frame structures approximately 60 feet tall. The proposed project involves the construction of access roads in portions of the alignment where a suitable road is not available and where development of an access road is permitted by the authorizing agency. Access roads would be used for installation of wood transmission structures, conductors, and overhead ground wires, removal of poles and conductors, and for maintenance and inspection activities. In limited areas where vehicle access is not feasible due to topographical constraints and/or agency requirements, the alignment would be accessed via helicopter, mule, horse, all-terrain vehicle, and/or foot. In order to accomplish the planned activities, Garkane will require a 100 foot-wide permanent right-of-way. In addition, temporary use permits would be needed for several 125 by 400 foot pulling and splicing locations and turning structure locations, and for approximately eight 200 by 600 foot temporary staging locations. Project construction activities and overland access along the proposed project alignment will be conducted within the proposed 100 foot-wide right-of-way and the temporary use permit areas. The proposed 138kV transmission line would originate at a proposed East Valley Substation, located near Tropic, Utah and terminate at the existing Hatch Substation near Hatch, Utah, along U.S. Route 89 and would extend approximately 31 miles. The project would involve various private land owners as well as jurisdictions managed by the State of Utah; Dixie National Forest; and Bureau of Land Management's Kanab Field Office and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Development of the proposed action would include the removal of the existing transmission line between the Bryce Canyon Substation and Hatch Mountain Switch Station through Red Canyon. One potential alternative would parallel an existing line through Bryce Canyon National Park. The Bureau of Land Management planning regulations (43 CFR 1600) require the preparation of planning criteria to guide the development of resource management plan amendments. Planning criteria ensure that plans are tailored to the identified issues and ensure that unnecessary data collection and analysis are avoided. These general planning criteria will be used to develop a Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan amendment for the Tropic to Hatch 138kV Transmission Line Project. The planning criteria are as follows: • The plan amendment will only consider adding one new utility right-of-way in the primitive zone adjacent to an existing utility right-of-way. • It will be completed in compliance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and all other applicable laws. • It will meet the intent of the Proclamation that established Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument which protects objects of geological, paleontological, archaeological, biological, and historic values within the Monument. Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act and 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* , the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service will be directing a third-party contractor in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement on the impacts of the proposed action. Purpose and Need for Action Growth in Garfield and Kane counties has increased electrical demand. The growth in this area has resulted in a 66 percent increase in the electrical demand during the past five years. This has caused an overloading of the transmission lines and a decrease in the reliability of the electrical system. Garkane, which owns, operates and maintains the electric delivery systems in this area, has found the existing system insufficient to meet electrical demand without operation of temporary diesel generators. Currently a 138kV transmission line provides connection from the Glen Canyon Dam to the Tropic area, however only a 69kV transmission line provides connection between the Tropic and Hatch substations. The 69kV transmission system is Garkane's main electrical supply to the area west of Tropic and is insufficient to provide power equal to the electrical demand in that area. The existing 69kV electrical transmission system is operating at its capacity and cannot be modified to carry higher voltages due to physical limitations of the pole structures. The proposed project is needed to bring this available energy from the Tropic area to the Hatch area where the electric demands are increasing. The proposed electrical system improvement will provide a cost-effective solution to adequately address both current demands and provide capacity for the foreseeable future. A right-of-way must be acquired or amended to allow the construction, maintenance and operation of the new transmission line. Substations will be developed on private land as part of the project. Special use authorizations and rights-of-way are needed to allow Garkane to upgrade the current electrical service from Tropic to Hatch, Garfield County, Utah to meet current and future electrical demands. Proposed Action The Forest Supervisor of the Dixie National Forest and the Utah State Director of the Bureau of Land Management propose to conduct analysis and decide whether to grant the necessary Special Use Authorization and Right-of-Way permits to Garkane to construct, operate and maintain a 138kV transmission line and all associated features from Tropic to Hatch in Garfield County, Utah. The proposed project would require amending the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan to allow a utility right-of-way in the primitive zone adjacent to an existing utility right-of-way. Dependant upon the final location of the transmission line alignment, the Dixie National Forest Plan may need to be amended to adjust or modify the scenic integrity objectives. The proposed corridor originates on private land at the proposed East Valley Substation and extends northeast following East Valley Road to an existing Rocky Mountain Power 230kV transmission line corridor. The project route then parallels the south side of the Rocky Mountain Power 230kV Transmission Line to the northwest through Cedar Fork Canyon. As the project route exits the Canyon on the Paunsaugunt Plateau, it diverges from the Rocky Mountain Power 230kV Transmission Line corridor and extends east across John's Valley for approximately seven miles. At this point, the corridor turns south for approximately two miles crossing State Route 12 near the Bryce Canyon Pines Motel. The route then extends west through Johnson Bench until it intersects Forest Service Road 1150, and then parallels Forest Service Road 1150 to the head of the Hillsdale Canyon. The project route continues through a designated utility corridor west down the canyon to Forest Road 223 and turns north for approximately 0.5 mile. At this point, the project route leaves the road and extends due west across Long Valley paralleling section lines, and eventually crossing U.S. Route 89 where it then turns to the southwest for approximately two miles to the Hatch Substation. The proposed line would cross approximately 15 miles of National Forest, 3.67 miles of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, 3.53 miles of Bureau of Land Management Kanab Field Office, 7.27 miles of State, and 1.76 miles of private lands. Legal description for the project route corridor is as follows: Sections 27-29, 31, 32, 34, and 35, T35S, R3W; sections 34-36, T35S, R4W; sections 7, 17, 18, 20, 28, 29, 32, and 33, T36S, R2W; sections 2, 11, and 12, T36S, R3W; sections 3, 4, and 7-9, T36S, R4W; sections 8, 9, and 11-16, T36S, R4.5W; and sections 11-16, and 21, T36S, R5W. The new transmission line will be a single 138kV circuit supported by wood pole H-frame structures approximately 60 feet tall. The proposed project involves the construction of access roads in portions of the alignment where a suitable road is not available and where development of an access road is permitted by the authorizing agency. Access roads would be used for installation of wood transmission structures, conductors, overhead ground wires, removal of poles and conductors, and for maintenance and inspection activities. In limited areas where vehicle access is not feasible due to topographical constraints and/or agency requirements, the alignment would be accessed via helicopter, mule, horse, all-terrain vehicle, and/or foot. In order to accomplish the planned activities, Garkane will require a 100 foot-wide permanent right-of-way. In addition, temporary use permits will be needed for 125 by 400 foot areas at pulling and splicing locations at turning structures and for approximately eight 200 by 600 feet areas for temporary staging activities. Project construction activities and overland access along the proposed project alignment will be conducted within the proposed 100 foot-wide right-of-way and temporary use permit areas. Development of the proposed action would include the removal and reclamation of the existing transmission line between the Bryce Canyon Substation and the Hatch Mountain Switch Station through Red Canyon. Possible Alternatives All alternatives studied in detail must fall within the scope of the purpose and need for action and will generally tier to and comply with the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986), Grand Staircase Escalante National Mounment Management Plan (1999), Cedar, Beaver, Garfield, Antimony Resource Management Plan (1986), and if necessary the Bryce Canyon National Park General Management Plan

(1987)and National Park Service Management Policies (2006). Law requires evaluation of a “no-action alternative.” A possible alternative would be to build the transmission line roughly parallel to the existing 69kV transmission line corridor. The current 69kV line would need to remain in place until such time as the upgraded line is energized. This alternative would originate at the proposed East Valley Substation and extend generally west though Tropic, Utah crossing State Route 12, continuing approximately three miles through Bryce Canyon National Park with 1.2 miles of new alignment onto the Paunsaugunt Plateau to the Bryce Substation near the Ruby's Inn area. The route would then parallel the existing line across the Paunsaugunt Plateau in a northwest direction to Red Canyon where it would parallel the existing line through Red Canyon into Long Valley, cross U.S. Route 89 to the Hatch Mountain Switch Station. From the switch station, the route would parallel the existing line south to the Hatch Substation. This alternative would remove and reclaim the portion of the existing 69kV line between the Tropic Substation and Hatch Mountain Switch Station. The Tropic and Bryce substations would need to be expanded, and probably relocated. In limited areas where vehicle access is not feasible due to topographical constraints and/or agency requirements, the alignment would be accessed via helicopter, mule, horse, all-terrain vehicle, and/or foot. The legal description for the alternative corridor is as follows: Sections 31 and 32, T35S, R4W; sections 26-28, 30, 35, and 36, T35S, R4.5W; sections 25-27, 33, and 34, T35S, R5W; sections 31 and 32, T36S, R2W; sections 16-18, 21-23, 25, 26, and 36, T36S, R3W; sections 3-5, and 10-13, T36S, R4W; and sections 4, 9, 16, and 21, T36S, R5W. Additional alternatives may be developed based on scoping comments. Lead and Cooperating Agencies The Forest Service is the lead agency. The Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service will participate as cooperating agencies. The Utah State Institutional Trust Lands have been invited to be a cooperating agency. Responsible Officials Robert G. MacWhorter, Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest, 1789 N. Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, Utah 84720. Selma Sierra, Utah BLM State Director, P.O. Box 45155, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0155. Mike Snyder, Regional Director, National Park Service Regional Office, 12795 West Alameda Pkwy, P.O. Box 25287, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. Nature of Decisions To Be Made The responsible officials will decide whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no action. The Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest will decide whether to issue a Special Use Authorization for the construction, operation and maintenance of a 138kV transmission line from Tropic to Hatch, Utah. The Forest Service may propose to amend the Forest Plan to adjust the scenic integrity objective if necessary depending on route alignment and impact analysis. The Bureau of Land Management State Director will decide whether approve an amendment to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan necessary to issue a right-of-way for the construction operation and maintenance of a 138kV transmission line from Tropic to Hatch, Utah. The National Park Service Regional Director would decide whether to issue a Special Use Permit for a right-of-way for the construction, operation and maintenance of a 138kV transmission line through Bryce Canyon National Park if an alternative through the park is selected. Scoping Process The first formal opportunity to comment on the Tropic to Hatch 138kV Transmission Line Project is during the scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7), which begins with the issuance of this Notice of Intent. Mail comments to: Ms. Susan Baughman, Dixie National Forest, 1789 N. Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, Utah 84720. E-mail comments can be sent to: *tropic_to_hatch_transmission_line_eis_comment@fs.fed.us* . Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. The Forest Service is inviting Federal, State and local agencies, the public, and other interested parties to provide comments, suggestions and input regarding the nature and scope of the environmental, social and economic issues, and possible alternatives related to the Tropic to Hatch 138kV Transmission Line Project. The scoping process for this Environmental Impact Statement will include two public meetings for interested agencies and the public to submit written concerns and issues they believe should be addressed. Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received within 30 days from date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** to be most useful. A series of public opportunities are scheduled to describe the proposal and to provide an opportunity for public input. Two scoping meetings are planned: March 12, 2008: 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Panquitch Library, 25 South 200 East, Panguitch, Utah 84759. March 13, 2008: 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Cannonville Visitor Center, 10 Center Street, Cannonville, Utah 84718. Written comments will be accepted at these meetings. The Forest Service will work with tribal governments to address issues that would significantly or uniquely affect them. Preliminary Issues Issues that may be analyzed in all alternatives include: Effects on flora and fauna (e.g., threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, and management indicator species); effects on scenic and visual resources; effects on cultural and paleontological resources; effects on upland vegetation; effects on Forest Service inventoried roadless areas and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument primitive management zones; and effects on noxious weeds and invasive species. Specific issues will be developed through review of public comments and internal review. Permits or Licenses Required It is assumed applications will be filed with affected agencies as necessary. Currently, alternative corridors cross lands managed by the Forest Service, National Park Service, and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The entitlements required from each Federal agency are: • Forest Service—Special Use Authorization • Bureau of Land Management—Grant of Right-of-Way • Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument—Grant of Right-of-Way • National Park Service—Special Use Permit for a Right-of-Way, if applicable. Comment Requested This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Consequently site-specific comments or concerns that are tied directly to the proposed action are the most important types of information needed for this Environmental Impact Statement. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be at least 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the **Federal Register** . If a Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan amendment is required, the comment period would be 90 days. The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 [1978]* . Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage, but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 [9th Cir. 1986] and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 [E.D. Wis. 1980]* . Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final Environmental Impact Statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21. Dated: February 14, 2008. Robert G. MacWhorter, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-3194 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce 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:* Office of the Secretary, Office of Civil Rights. *Title:* Complaint of Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation against the Department of Commerce. *OMB Control Number:* None. *Form Number(s):* CD-545. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 10. *Number of Respondents:* 20. *Average Hours Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Needs and Use:* Pursuant to Executive Order 11478 and Department of Commerce Administrative Order

(DAO)215-11, an employee or applicant for employment with the Department of Commerce who alleges that he or she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment based on sexual orientation by the Department of Commerce or one of its sub-agencies, must submit a signed statement that is sufficiently precise to identify the actions or practices that form the basis of the complaint. Through use of this standardized form, the Office of Civil Rights proposes to collect the information required by the Executive Order and DAO in a uniform manner that will increase the efficiency of complaint processing and trend analyses of complaint activity. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via e-mail at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, fax number

(202)395-7258 or via e-mail at *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: February 14, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-3158 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-BP-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Field Representatives/Enumerators Exit Questionnaire AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, 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 proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before April 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Darlene Moul, Census Bureau/Field Division, Room 5H051, Washington, DC 20233, or 301-763-1935, or via the Internet at *darlene.a.moul@census.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract In a continuous effort to devise policies and practices aimed at reducing turnover among interviewers, the Census Bureau collects data on the reasons interviewers voluntarily quit their jobs with the Census Bureau. The exit questionnaires, BC-1294 and BC-1294(D), are the instruments used to collect this data from a sample of former current survey interviewers (field representatives) and decennial census interviewers (enumerators/listers), respectively. Both forms ask questions about the factors that affected an interviewer's decision to voluntarily leave Census Bureau employment. Since the nature of census enumerator work differs from current survey interviewing, we created two questionnaires that are tailored to the operational differences. While the forms cover the same topics, the questions and response choices on the BC-1294 and BC-1294(D) reflect the differences in the current survey and decennial interviewing operations. Because of both the monetary cost associated with turnover and the potential impact on data quality, the retention of trained field interviewing staff is a major concern for the Census Bureau. Consequently the goal or purpose of the exit questionnaires is to identify the reasons for interviewer turnover and determine what the Census Bureau might have done, or can do, to influence interviewers not to leave. Therefore, the exit questionnaire seeks reasons interviewers quit, inquires about motivational factors that would have kept the interviewers from leaving, identifies training program strengths and areas for improvement, and explores the impact of automation and the influence of pay and other working conditions on turnover. The information provided by respondents to the exit questionnaire provides insight on the measures the Census Bureau might take to decrease turnover, and is useful in helping to determine if the reasons for interviewer turnover appear to be systemic or localized. To accomplish the goal of reducing interviewer turnover, Census Bureau planners and decision makers must fully understand the relative importance and interaction of possible contributory factors. From both the BC-1294 and BC-1294(D), we have learned that the causes of interviewer turnover are often a combination of reasons rather than one single reason. We have also learned that there are some reasons for turnover which are within the Census Bureau's control and some which are not. This data is not available from any other source. The exit questionnaire is the only instrument that solicits the information we need to answer our questions concerning the impact of the various factors on Census Bureau interviewer turnover. As the environment in which surveys take place, the nature of surveys conducted, and the characteristics of our labor force continue to change, it is important that we continue to examine the interviewers' concerns about the job of a Census Bureau interviewer. The exit questionnaire has proven to be very useful and, therefore, we want to continue to use it. The data we collect from current survey interviewers and enumerators/listers during the 2010 decennial census will help the Census Bureau develop plans to reduce turnover. These results will also allow for better informed management decisions regarding the future field work force and the implementation of more effective recruitment, pay plans, interviewer training, and retention strategies. II. Method of Collection The exit questionnaire will be administered by telephone. This methodology is employed due to the nature of the questions, which may require probing to obtain or clarify answers. In addition, telephone methodology has historically yielded response rates that are greater than those obtained from similar mail out/mail back methodologies, especially when the collection interval is relatively short, and the audience is former employees. A sample of former employees will be called and asked a series of questions about when and why they voluntarily quit their job. The sample will not include interviewers (current survey or decennial) who have been terminated for cause. Interviews with former field representatives should take approximately seven

(7)minutes. Because of the nature of some of the questions on the BC-1294(D), interviews with former enumerators/listers should take approximately ten

(10)minutes. We estimate that interviews will be conducted with a total of 500 field representatives and 1,000 enumerators on a yearly basis. *For Former Field Representatives:* Approximately every month, a sample of one-half of all interviewers who voluntarily resigned, within a given sampling period, will be contacted by telephone to complete a questionnaire. The sample size will vary since it is dependent on the universe size, which varies from one sampling period to the next. *For Former 2010 Census Enumerators and Listers:* Beginning approximately two weeks after the start of decennial field operations (Address Canvassing, Update/Enumerate and Nonresponse-Followup), all enumerators or listers who have been in a continuous non-pay status for a period of two weeks will be contacted by telephone and asked to complete a questionnaire. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0607-0404. *Form Number:* BC-1294, BC-1294(D). *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Former Census Bureau Interviewers (Field Representatives and Enumerators/Listers). *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 500 Former Current Survey Interviewers; 1000 Former 2010 Census Enumerators/Listers. *Estimated Time per Response:* Seven

(7)minutes for Former Current Survey Interviewers; Ten

(10)minutes for Census Enumerator/Listers. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 226 hours (59 hours for Current Survey Interviewers; 167 hours for Census Enumerators/Listers). *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* Approximately $4,000 for the BC-1294. Additional cost for administering the BC-1294(D) during decennial operations is approximately $8,000. The Census Bureau will bear this cost. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 15 U.S.C., section 3101 and Title 13, U.S.C. section 23. 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, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: February 12, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-2929 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Award for Excellence in Economic Development AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, 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 proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before April 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patty Sheetz, Director, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs Division, Room 7816, Economic Development Administration, Washington, DC 20230, telephone

(202)482-5842. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Economic Development Administration

(EDA)provides a broad range of economic development assistance to help distressed communities design and implement effective economic development strategies. Part of this assistance includes disseminating information about best practices and encouraging collegial importance. In order to make an award selection, EDA must collect two kinds of information:

(a)Identifying the nominee and contacts within the organization being nominated and

(b)explaining why the nominee should be given the award. The information will be used to determine those applicants best meeting the pre-announced selection criteria. The use of a nomination form standardizes and limits the information collected as part of the nomination process. This makes the competition fair and eases any burden on applicants and reviewers alike. Participation in the competition is voluntary. The award is strictly honorary. II. Method of Collection The nomination form is downloadable off of EDA's Web site and can be faxed or submitted in hard copy to EDA. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0610-0101. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* State, local or Tribal Government and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 50. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 3 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 150. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. 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

(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number), or by E-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR Part 325 (2006). Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the U.S. Department of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the **Federal Register** . Under section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous. *Description of Certified Conduct:* I. Export Trade *Products* All Products. *Services* All Services. Technology Rights Technology rights, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, that relate to Products and Services. Export Trade Facilitation Services (as they relate to the export of Products, Services, and Technology Rights) Export Trade Facilitation Services, including, but not limited to, professional services in the areas of government relations and assistance with state and federal programs; foreign trade and business protocol; consulting; market research and analysis; collection of information on trade opportunities; marketing; negotiations; joint ventures; shipping; export management; export licensing; advertising; documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; insurance and financing; trade show exhibitions; organizational development; management and labor strategies; transfer of technology; transportation services; and facilitating the formation of shippers' associations. II. Export Markets The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands). III. Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation 1. With respect to the sale of Products and Services, licensing of Technology Rights and provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services, XCC, subject to the terms and conditions listed below, may: a. Provide and arrange for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services; b. Engage in promotional and marketing activities and collect information on trade opportunities in the Export Markets and distribute such information to clients; c. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive licensing and/or sales agreements with Suppliers for the export of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights to Export Markets; d. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive agreements with distributors and/or sales representatives in Export Markets; e. Allocate export sales or divide Export Markets among Suppliers for the sale and/or licensing of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights; f. Allocate export orders among Suppliers; g. Establish the price of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights for sales and/or licensing in Export Markets; h. Negotiate, enter into, and/or manage licensing agreements for the export of Technology Rights; and i. Enter into contracts for shipping of Products to Export Markets. 2. XCC may exchange information on a one-to-one basis with individual Suppliers regarding that Supplier's inventories and near-term production schedules for the purpose of determining the availability of Products for export and coordinating exports with distributors. IV. Terms and Conditions of Certificate 1. In engaging in Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operations, XCC, including its officers, employees or agents, will not intentionally disclose, directly or indirectly, to any Supplier (including parent companies, subsidiaries, or other entities related to any Supplier) any information about any other Supplier's costs, production, capacity, inventories, domestic prices, domestic sales, or U.S. business plans, strategies, or methods that is not already generally available to the trade or public. 2. XCC will comply with requests made by the Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce or the Attorney General for information or documents relevant to conduct under the Certificate. The Secretary of Commerce will request such information or documents when either the Attorney General or the Secretary of Commerce believes that the information or documents are required to determine that the Export Trade, Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation of a person protected by this Certificate of Review continue to comply with the standard of section 303(a) of the Act. V. Definition “Supplier” means a person who produces, provides, or sells Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights. VI. Protection Provided by Certificate This Certificate protects XCC and its directors, officers, and employees acting on its behalf, from private treble damage actions and government criminal and civil suits under U.S. federal and state antitrust laws for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out during its effective period in compliance with its terms and conditions. VII. Effective Period of Certificate This Certificate continues in effect from the effective date indicated below until it is relinquished, modified, or revoked as provided in the Act and the Regulations. VIII. Other Conduct Nothing in this Certificate prohibits XCC from engaging in conduct not specified in this Certificate, but such conduct is subject to the normal application of U.S. antitrust laws. IX. Disclaimer The issuance of this Certificate of Review to XCC by the Secretary of Commerce with the concurrence of the Attorney General under the provisions of the Act does not constitute, explicitly or implicitly, an endorsement or opinion of the Secretary of Commerce or the Attorney General concerning either

(a)the viability or quality of the business plans of XCC or

(b)the legality of such business plans of XCC under the laws of the United States (other than as provided in the Act) or under the laws of any foreign country. The application of this Certificate to conduct in export trade where the U.S. Government is the buyer or where the U.S. Government bears more than half the cost of the transaction is subject to the limitations set forth in section V.(D.) of the “Guidelines for the Issuance of Export Trade Certificates of Review (Second Edition),” 50 FR 1786 (January 11, 1985). A copy of the certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Dated: February 15, 2008. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-3253 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF54 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Tautog Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of non-compliance referral. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that on February 7, 2008, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) found the State of New Jersey out of compliance with the Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Tautog (ISFMP). Subsequently, the Commission referred the matter to NMFS, under delegation of authority from the Secretary of Commerce, for federal non-compliance review under the provisions of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act). The Atlantic Coastal Act mandates that NMFS must review the Commission's non-compliance referral and make specific findings within thirty

(30)days after receiving the referral. If NMFS determines that New Jersey failed to carry out its responsibilities under the Tautog ISFMP, and if the measures it failed to implement are necessary for conservation, then, according to the Atlantic Coastal Act, NMFS must declare a moratorium on fishing for tautog in New Jersey waters. DATES: NMFS intends to make a determination on this matter by March 11, 2008, and will publish its findings in the **Federal Register** immediately thereafter. ADDRESSES: Harold C. Mears, Director, State, Federal and Constituent Programs Office, NMFS, Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Ross, Fishery Management Specialist, NMFS, Northeast Region,

(978)281-9234, fax

(978)281-9117, e-mail *Bob.Ross@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tautog ( *Tautoga onitis* ), often known by the common name “blackfish,” is a coastal fish species ranging from Nova Scotia to South Carolina, but most abundant from the southern Gulf of Maine (lower Massachusetts Bay and southern Cape Cod Bay) to Chesapeake Bay. The Commission manages this species according to its Tautog ISFMP. The Commission's Tautog ISFMP can be located at *http://www.asmfc.org* , (select “Interstate Fishery Management,” then select “Tautog.”) The Commission Tautog ISFMP—specifically Addendum IV and Addendum V to the ISFMP—indicate that states need to implement measures that would reduce their tautog landings by 25.6% in order to respond to scientific concerns that tautog is being overfished. New Jersey's Marine Fishery Council, however, in November 2007 refused to implement any further measures causing the Commission on February 7, 2008, to vote that New Jersey was out of compliance with the Tautog ISFMP. The Commission subsequently referred its non-compliance finding to NMFS. Federal response to a Commission non-compliance referral is governed by the Atlantic Coastal Act. Under the Atlantic Coastal Act, the Secretary of Commerce must make two

(2)findings within 30 days after receiving the non-compliance referral. First, the Secretary of Commerce must determine whether the state in question (in this case, New Jersey) has failed to carry out its responsibilities under the ISFMP. Second, the Secretary of Commerce must determine whether the measures that the State has failed to implement or enforce are necessary for the conservation of the fishery in question. If the Secretary of Commerce makes affirmative findings on both criteria, then the Secretary must implement a moratorium on fishing in the fishery in question (in this case tautog) within the waters of the noncomplying state (in this case New Jersey). Further, the moratorium must become effective within six

(6)months of the date of the Secretary's non-compliance determination. To the extent that the allegedly offending state later implements the involved measure, the Atlantic Coastal Act allows the state to petition the Commission that it has come back into compliance, and if the Commission concurs, the Commission will notify the Secretary of Commerce and, if the Secretary concurs, the moratorium will be withdrawn. The Secretary of Commerce has delegated Atlantic Coastal Act authorities to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries at NMFS. NMFS has notified the State of New Jersey, the Commission, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and the New England Fishery Management Council, in separate letters, of its receipt of the Commission's non-compliance referral. In the letters, NMFS solicits commentary from the Commission and Councils to the extent either entity is interested in providing such. NMFS also indicates to the State of New Jersey that the State is entitled to meet with and present its comments directly to NMFS if the State so desires. NMFS intends to make its non-compliance determination on or about March 11, 2008, which is 30 days after receipt of the Commission's non-compliance referral. NMFS will announce its determination by **Federal Register** notice immediately thereafter. To the extent that NMFS makes an affirmative non-compliance finding, NMFS will announce the effective date of the moratorium in that **Federal Register** notice. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5101 *et seq.* Dated: February 15, 2008. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-3252 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Science Advisory Board AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Science Advisory Board

(SAB)was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA)science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management. *Time and Date:* The meeting will be held Wednesday, March 12, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. and Thursday, March 13, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Please refer to the Web page: *http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Meetings/meetings.html* for the most up-to-date meeting agenda. *Place:* The meeting will be held both days at the Hilton Washington DC/Silver Spring, 8727 Colesville Road, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please check the SAB Web site *http://www.sab.noaa.gov* for confirmation of the venue. *Status:* The meeting will be open to public participation with a 30-minute public comment period on March 12 (check Web site to confirm time). The SAB expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five

(5)minutes. Written comments should be received in the SAB Executive Director's Office by March 7, 2008 to provide sufficient time for SAB review. Written comments received by the SAB Executive Director after March 7, 2008, will be distributed to the SAB, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. *Matters To Be Considered:* The meeting will include the following topics:

(1)Draft Report from the Working Group to Examine Advisory Options for Improving Communications among NOAA's Partners (Partnerships WG or PWG);

(2)Final Report from the Extension, Outreach & Education Working Group (EOEWG);

(3)Report on the Final Results from the Ocean Exploration Advisory Working Group workshops;

(4)NOAA Response to the SAB High-Performance Computing Recommendations and the Way Forward;

(5)Discussion of a proposed SAB standing working group on ecosystems;

(6)NOAA Monitoring Research Committee process updates and SAB Benchmark Review Discussion;

(7)Discussion of SAB Strategic Planning;

(8)the Census of Marine Life

(CoML)Program;

(9)the NOAA Hydrographic Services Review Panel;

(10)results of the Review of the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program;

(11)Report on NOAA Activities in Support of the International Year of the Reef (IYR);

(12)Report on NOAA Activities in Support of the International Polar Year (IPY); and

(13)the National Academy of Sciences

(NAS)Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Rm. 11230, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-734-1156, Fax: 301-713-1459, E-mail: *Cynthia.Decker@noaa.gov* ); or visit the NOAA SAB Web site at: *http://www.sab.noaa.gov.* Dated: February 13, 2008. Mark Brown, Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E8-3259 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF59 Endangered Species; File No. 10115 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. Douglas Peterson, University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forest Resources, Athens, GA 30602, has applied in due form for a permit to take shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) for purposes of scientific research. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before March 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: The application 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)713-0376; and Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 10115. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandy Belmas or Malcolm Mohead, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226). Dr. Douglas Peterson is seeking a five-year scientific research permit to conduct a presence/absence study of shortnose sturgeon in the St. Marys and Satilla Rivers, Georgia. The purpose of the proposed research is to assess the current status of shortnose sturgeon in these rivers, as well as evaluate the current habitat availability in each river. If shortnose sturgeon are found, another objective of the proposed research would be to quantify the genetic discreteness and effective population size of the extant stock. The applicant is requesting to capture (by anchored gill or trammel nets), measure, weigh, PIT tag, fin clip, and fin ray sample 73 shortnose sturgeon annually from each river. Blood samples would be collected from another 12 fish from each river annually, and internal radio tags would be implanted in a total of 10 fish from each river over the life of the permit. Those fish that have blood collected and internal tags implanted would also be anesthetized and have their sex determined using laparoscopic procedures. Up to 20 eggs and larvae from each river would be collected by egg mats annually. A total of one unintentional mortality, for both rivers combined, is being requested each year. Dated: February 14, 2008. Tammy C. Adams, Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-3258 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF33 Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Marine Geophysical Survey off Central America, February-April 2008 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental take authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA)regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization

(IHA)to Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO), a part of Columbia University, for the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, incidental to conducting a marine seismic survey off Central America during February-April, 2008. DATES: Effective February 15, 2008, through February 14, 2009. ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the application are available 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 the contact listed here. 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: Candace Nachman, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

(301)713-2289 x156. 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

(OBSs)to receive the returning acoustic signals. In the Pacific Ocean, a second vessel, the R/V *New Horizon* , will deploy and retrieve the OBSs. For the first part of the cruise, the *Langseth* is expected to depart Puerto Limon, Costa Rica, on approximately February 16, 2008 for the study area in the Caribbean Sea (see Figure 1 in the application). The seismic survey will commence following the transit and deployment of the streamer and airgun array. Following approximately 25 days of surveying in the Caribbean Sea, all equipment will be recovered, and the vessel will return to Puerto Limon on approximately March 11, 2008. The vessel will then transit through the Panama Canal, likely taking on fuel in Panama. The second part of the survey will commence in the Pacific Ocean on approximately March 19, 2008 from Puerto Caldera, Costa Rica. The Pacific survey is estimated to last approximately 25 days. The vessel is scheduled to arrive at Puerto Caldera on April 13, 2008. The exact dates of the activities depend upon logistics, as well as weather conditions and/or the need to repeat some lines if data quality is substandard. The Central American SubFac survey will encompass the area from 9.6°-14° N., 82°-83.8° W. in the Caribbean Sea and the area 8°-11.5° N., 83.6°-88° W. in the Pacific Ocean (see Figure 1 in the application). Water depths in the survey area range from less than 100 m (328 ft) to greater than 2,500 m (8,202 ft). The marine seismic survey will consist of approximately 2,149 km (1,335 mi) of unique survey lines: 753 km (468 mi) in the Caribbean and 1,396 km (867 mi) in the Pacific (see Table 1 in the application). With the exception of two lines (D and E) located in shallow to intermediate-depth water, all lines will be shot twice, once at approximately a 50-m (164 ft; 20-s) shot spacing for multichannel seismic data and once at approximately a 200-m (656 ft; 80-s) shot spacing for OBS refraction data, for a total of approximately 3,980 km (2,473 mi) of survey lines (see Table 1 in the application). The approximate numbers of line kilometers expected to be surveyed in the Pacific and Caribbean in three different water depth categories are shown in Table 2 of the application. There will be additional operations associated with equipment testing, startup, line changes, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is substandard. There will be an additional 77 km (48 mi) of survey effort in the Pacific Ocean around Culebra off Nicoya Peninsula not reflected in Table 1 of L-DEO's application. These additional six transect lines will occur in water greater than 100 m (328 ft) deep, will not add any additional days to the cruise, and are not expected to increase the number of takes by harassment (see below). The *New Horizon* will be the dedicated OBS vessel during the Pacific part of the survey and will deploy and retrieve the OBSs. A combination of 85 OBSs (150 total deployments) will be used during the project. A total of 60 OBS deployments will take place in the Caribbean (from the *Langseth* ), and 90 deployments will take place in the Pacific from the New Horizon. In addition to the operations of the airgun array, a 12-kHz Simrad EM120 multibeam echosounder will be operated from the *Langseth* continuously throughout the cruise. Also, a 3.5-kHz sub-bottom profiler

(SBP)will be operated by the *Langseth* during most of the survey and during normal operations by the *New Horizon* . A more detailed description of the authorized action, including vessel and acoustic source specifications, was included in the proposed IHA notice (72 FR 71625, December 18, 2007). Safety Radii L-DEO estimated the safety radii around their operations using a model and by adjusting the model results based on empirical data gathered in the Gulf of Mexico in 2003. Additional information regarding safety radii in general, how the safety radii were calculated, and how the empirical measurements were used to correct the modeled numbers may be found in NMFS' proposed IHA notice (72 FR 71625, December 18, 2007) and Section I and Appendix A of L-DEO's application. Using the modeled distances and various correction factors, Table 1 outlines the distances at which three rms sound levels (190 dB, 180 dB, and 160 dB) are expected to be received from the various airgun configurations in shallow, intermediate, and deep water depths. Source and Volume Tow Depth

(m)Water Depth Predicted RMS Distances

(m)190 dB 180 dB 160 dB Single Bolt airgun 40 in 3 9 Deep Intermediate Shallow 12 18 150 40 60 296 385 578 1050 4 strings 36 airguns 6600 in 3 9 Deep Intermediate Shallow 300 450 2182 950 1425 3694 6000 6667 8000 4 strings 36 airguns 6600 in 3 12 Deep Intermediate Shallow 340 510 2473 1120 1680 4356 7400 8222 9867 Table 1. Predicted distances to which sound levels ≥190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 μPa might be received in shallow (<100 m; 328 ft), intermediate (100-1,000 m; 328-3,280 ft), and deep (>1,000 m; 3,280 ft) water during the Central American SubFac survey. Comments and Responses A notice of receipt of the L-DEO application and proposed IHA was published in the **Federal Register** on December 18, 2007 (72 FR 71625). During the comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC). Following are the comments from the MMC and NMFS' responses. *MMC Comment 1:* The MMC recommends that observations be made during all ramp-up procedures to gather data regarding its effectiveness as a mitigation measure. *Response:* The IHA requires that marine mammal observers

(MMOs)on the *Langseth* make observations for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up, during all ramp-ups, and during all daytime seismic operations and record the following information when a marine mammal is sighted:

(i)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 the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), and behavioral pace; and

(ii)time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up or power-down), sea state, visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare. These requirements should provide information regarding the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure, provided animals are detected during ramp-up. *MMC Comment 2:* The MMC recommends that the monitoring period prior to the initiation of seismic activities and to the resumption of airgun activities after a power-down be extended to one hour. *Response:* As the MMC points out, several species of deep-diving cetaceans are capable of remaining underwater for more than 30 minutes. However, for the following reasons, NMFS believes that 30 minutes is an adequate length for the monitoring period prior to the start-up of airguns:

(1)because the *Langseth* is required to ramp-up, the time of monitoring prior to start-up of any but the smallest array is effectively longer than 30 minutes (i.e., ramp-up will begin with the smallest gun in the array and airguns will be added in a sequence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps not exceeding approximately 6 dB per 5-min period over a total duration of 20-40 min);

(2)in many cases MMOs are making observations during times when sonar is not being operated and will actually be observing the area prior to the 30-min observation period anyway; (3), many of the species that may be exposed do not stay underwater more than 30 minutes; and

(4)all else being equal and if a deep diving individual happened to be in the area in the short time immediately prior to the pre-start-up monitoring, if an animal's maximum underwater time is 45 minutes, there is only a 1 in 3 chance that its last random surfacing would be prior to the beginning of the required 30-min monitoring period. *MMC Comment 3:* The MMC recommends that NMFS provide additional justification for its proposed determination that the planned monitoring program will be sufficient to detect, with a high level of certainty, all marine mammals within or entering the identified safety radii. *Response:* The *Langseth* is utilizing a team of trained MMOs to both visually monitor from the high observation tower of the *Langseth* and to conduct passive acoustic monitoring (PAM). This monitoring, along with the required mitigation measures (see below), will result in the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and will result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks. When stationed on the observation platform of the *Langseth* , the eye level will be approximately 17.8 m (58.4 ft) above sea level, so the visible distance (in good weather) to the horizon is 8.9 nm (16.5 km; the largest safety radii is 2.4 nm, 4.4 km). Big eyes are most effective at scanning the horizon (for blows), while 7 X 50 reticle binoculars are more effective closer in (MMOs also use a naked eye scan). Night vision devices

(NVDs)will be used in low light situations. Additionally, MMOs will have a good view in all directions around the entire vessel. Also, nearly 80 percent of the survey transect lines are in intermediate or deep water depths, where the safety radii are all less than 1 nm (1.9 km). In some cases, particularly in shallow water, chase boats will be deployed, if practicable. The primary mission of the chase boat is to warn boats that the seismic vessel is approaching and thus the boat will be in front of the seismic vessel (generally about 3.7 km, 2 nm). The plan is to have one MMO on the chase boat, who will advise the *Langseth* of the presence of marine mammals in the operating area when forward of the vessel and check for injured animals when aft of the vessel. Theoretical detection distance of this PAM system is 10s of kilometers. The PAM is operated both during the day and at night. Though it depends on the lights on the ship, the sea state, and thermal factors, MMOs estimated that visual detection is effective out to between 150 and 250 m (492 and 820 ft) using NVDs and about 30 m (98.4 ft) with the naked eye. However, the PAM operates equally as effectively at night as during the day, especially for sperm whales and dolphins. *MMC Comment 4:* The MMC recommends that NMFS take steps to ensure that the planned monitoring program will be sufficient to detect, with reasonable certainty, all marine mammals within or entering the identified safety zones. *Response:* Based on the information provided in the previous comment (above) and the following information, NMFS believes that the planned monitoring program will be sufficient to detect (using visual detection and PAM), with reasonable certainty, most marine mammals within or entering identified safety zones. This monitoring, along with the required mitigation measures (see below), will result in the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and will result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks. As mentioned above, the platform of the *Langseth* is high enough that, in good weather, MMOs can see out to 16.5 km (8.9 nm). The PAM has reliable detection rates out to 3 km (1.6 nm) and more limited ability out to 10s of km. The largest 180-dB safety radii (3.7 and 4.4 km, 2 and 2.4 nm), which is the radii within which the *Langseth* is required to shut down if a marine mammal enters, are found when the 36-gun array is operating in shallow water at 9 and 12 m (29.5 and 39 ft) tow depths, respectively. The species most likely to be encountered in the shallow waters off the coasts of Nicaragua and Costa Rica are bottlenose and pantropical spotted dolphins, which have relatively larger group sizes (2-15 animals for bottlenose dolphins but even higher in some areas of the survey, 20 or more animals per group for pantropical spotted dolphins), are not cryptic at the surface, and have relatively short dive times (5-12 minutes for bottlenose), all which generally make them easier to visually detect. Furthermore, the vocalizations of these species are easily detected by the PAM. Also, as mentioned above, MMOs on chase boats will sometimes be used in addition to visual monitoring from the seismic vessels and PAM. During the *Maurice Ewing* cruise in the GOM in 2003, MMOs detected marine mammals at a distance of approximately 10 km (5.4 nm) from the vessel and identified them to species level at approximately 5 km (2.7 nm) from the vessel, though the bridge of that vessel was only 11 m (36 ft) above the water (vs. the *Langseth* , which is more than 17 m (55.8 ft) above sea level). All of the 180-dB safety radii for other water depths and tow depths and for the single 40 in 3 airgun to be used during ramp-ups and power-downs (see below) are less than 2 km (1.1 nm). The likelihood of visual detection at night is significantly lower than during the day, though the PAM remains just as effective at night as during the day. However, the *Langseth* will not be starting up the airguns unless the safety range is visible for the entire 30 minutes prior (i.e., not an night), and therefore in all cases at night, the airguns will already be operating, which NMFS believes will cause many cetaceans to avoid the vessel, which therefore will reduce the number likely to come within the safety radii. Additionally, all of the safety radii in intermediate and deep water depths are smaller than 3 km (1.6 nm) and fall easily within the reliable detection capabilities of the PAM. Description of Marine Mammals in the Activity Area A total of 35 marine mammal species are known to or may occur in the study area off Central America, including 26 odontocete (dolphins and small and large toothed whales) species, six mysticete (baleen whales) species, two pinniped species, and the West Indian manatee. Six of the species that may occur in the project area are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

(ESA)as Endangered: the sperm, humpback, sei, fin, and blue whale and the manatee. The West Indian manatee is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and therefore is not considered further in this analysis. L-DEO requested and has been authorized to take 26 of these species. The remaining nine species are not expected to be encountered during the survey. Table 2 outlines the species, their habitat and abundance in the project area, and the estimated and authorized take levels. Additional information regarding the status and distribution of the marine mammals in the area and how the densities were calculated was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 71625, December 18, 2007) and may be found in L-DEO's application. Species Habitat Abun. in NW Atlantic 1 Abun. in ETP 2 Auth Take in Carib. Sea Auth Take in ETP Odontocetes Sperm whale (C,P)( *Physeter macrocephalus* ) Pelagic 13,190 a 4,804 26,053 b 3 71 Pygmy sperm whale (C*,P)( *Kogia breviceps* ) Deeper water off shelf 395 c N.A. 0 0 Dwarf sperm whale (C*,P) ( *Kogia sima* ) Deeper waters off shelf 395 c 11,200 d 0 856 Cuvier's beaked whale (C*,P) ( *Ziphius cavirostris* ) Pelagic 3,513 e 20,000 90,725 bb 0 302 Longman's beaked whale (P?) ( *Indopacetus pacificus* ) Pelagic N.A. 291 bb 0 9 Pygmy beaked whale

(P)( *Mesoplodon peruvianus* ) Pelagic N.A. 25,300 f 32,678 cc 0 0 Gingko-toothed beaked whale (P?) ( *Mesoplodon ginkgodens* ) Pelagic N.A. 25,300 f 32,678 cc 0 0 Gervais' beaked whale (C?)( *Mesoplodon europaeus* ) Pelagic N.A. N.A. 4 0 Blainville's beaked whale (C*,P) ( *Mesoplodon densirostris* ) Pelagic N.A. 25,300 f 32,678 cc 0 29 Rough-toothed dolphin (C?,P) ( *Steno bredanensis* ) Mainly pelagic 2,223 g 145,900 9 954 Tucuxi

(C)( *Sotalia fluviatilis* ) Freshwater and coastal waters 49 h 705 i N.A. 0 0 Bottlenose dolphin (C,P) ( *Tursiops truncatus* ) Coastal, shelf and pelagic 43,951 j 81,588 k 243,500 389 2,380 Pantropical spotted dolphin (C?,P) ( *Stenella attenuata* ) Coastal and pelagic 4,439 2,059,100 37 7,560 Atlantic spotted dolphin

(C)( *Stenella frontalis* ) Coastal and shelf 50,978 N.A. 440 0 Spinner dolphin (C*,P) ( *Stenella longirostris* ) Coastal and pelagic 11,971 g 1,651,100 0 7,856 Costa Rican spinner dolphin

(P)( *Stenella l. centroamericana* ) Coastal N.A. N.A. 0 3,358 Clymene dolphin (C?) ( *Stenella clymene* ) Pelagic 6,086 N.A. 29 0 Striped dolphin (C*,P) ( *Stenella coeruleoalba* ) Coastal and pelagic 94,462 1,918,000 31 8,110 Short-beaked common dolphin

(P)( *Delphinus delphis* ) Shelf and pelagic N.A. 3,093,300 0 14,045 Fraser's dolphin (C*,P) ( *Lagenodelphis hosei* ) Pelagic 726 g 289,300 0 144 Risso's dolphin (C*,P) ( *Grampus griseus* ) Shelf and pelagic 20,479 175,800 0 651 Melon-headed whale (C*,P) ( *Peponocephala electra* ) Pelagic 3,451 g 45,400 0 1,315 Pygmy killer whale (C*,P) ( *Feresa attenuata* ) Pelagic 6 l 408 g 38,900 0 231 False killer whale (C*,P) ( *Pseudorca crassidens* ) Pelagic 1,038 g 39,800 0 479 Killer whale (C,P) ( *Orcinus orca* ) Coastal 133 g 6,600 m 8,500 10 17 Short-finned pilot whale (C,P) ( *Globicephala macrorhynchus* ) Pelagic 31,139 n 160,200 n 36 3,717 Humpback whale (C?,P) ( *Megaptera novaeangliae* ) Mainly nearshore waters and banks 10,400 o 11,570 p NE Pacific 1,391 q ; SE Pacific ~2,900 r 1 4 Minke whale (C*,P) ( *Balaenoptera acutorostrata* ) Coastal 3,618s 174,000t N.A. 0 0 Bryde's whale (C?,P) ( *Balaenoptera edeni* ) Coastal and pelagic 35 g 13,000 u 3 68 Sei whale (C*,P) ( *Balaenoptera borealis* ) Pelagic 12-13,000 v N.A. 0 0 Fin whale (C,P) ( *Balaenoptera physalus* ) Pelagic 2,814 30,000t 1,851 q 1 0 Blue whale (C*,P) ( *Balaenoptera musculus* ) Coastal, shelf, and pelagic 320 w 1,400 0 4 Sirenian West Indian manatee

(C)( *Trichechus manatus manatus* ) Freshwater and coastal waters 86 x 340 y N.A. 0 0 Pinnipeds California sea lion

(P)( *Zalophus californianus* ) Coastal N.A. 237,000-244,000 z 0 0 Galápagos sea lion (P?) ( *Zalophus wollebaeki* ) Coastal N.A. 30,000 aa 0 0 Table 2. The habitat, abundance, and requested take levels of marine mammals that may be encountered during the proposed Central American SubFac seismic survey off Central America. Note: Abun. = abundance, NWA = Northwest Alantic Ocean, P = may occur off Pacific coast of proposed project area, C = may occur off Caribbean coast of proposed project area, * = very unlikely to occur in proposed project area, ? = potentially possible but somewhat unlikely to occur in proposed project area, N.A. = Not available or not applicable. 1 For cetaceans, abundance estimates are given for U.S. Western North Atlantic stocks (Waring et al. 2006) unless otherwise noted. 2 Abundance estimates for the ETP from Wade and Gerrodette

(1993)unless otherwise indicated. a g(o) corrected total estimate for the Northeast Atlantic, Faroes-Iceland, and the U.S. east coast (Whitehead 2002). b Whitehead 2002. c This estimate is for Kogia sp. d This abundance estimate is mostly for *K. sima* but may also include some *K. breviceps* . e This estimate is for *Mesoplodon* and *Ziphius spp.* f This estimate includes all species of the genus *Mesoplodon* from Wade and Gerrodette (1993). g This estimate is for the northern Gulf of Mexico. h Estimate from a portion of Cayos Miskito Reserve, Nicaragua (Edwards and Schnell 2001). i Estimate from the Cananéia estuarine region of Brazil (Geise et al. 1999). j Estimate for the Western North Atlantic coastal stocks (North Carolina (summer), South Carolina, Georgia, Northern Florida, and Central Florida). k Estimate for the for the Western North Atlantic offshore stock. l Based on a single sighting. m Estimate for Icelandic and Faroese waters (Reyes 1991). n This estimate is for *G. macrorhynchus* and *G. melas.* o Estimate for the entire North Atlantic (Smith et al. 1999). p This estimate is for the entire North Atlantic (Stevick et al. 2001, 2003). q Carretta et al. 2007. r Felix et al. 2005. s This estimate is for the Canadian East Coast stock. t Estimate is for the North Atlantic (IWC 2007a). u This estimate is mainly for *Balaenoptera edeni* but may include some *B. borealis* . v Abundance estimate for the North Atlantic (Cattanach et al. 1993). w Minimum abundance estimate (Sears et al. 1990). x Antillean Stock in Puerto Rico only. y Antillean Stock in Belize (Reeves et al. 2002). z Estimate for the U.S. stock (Carretta et al. 2007). aa Reeves et al. 2002. bb Ferguson and Barlow 2001 in Barlow et al. 2006. cc This estimate includes all species of the genus *Mesoplodon* (Ferguson and Barlow 2001 in Barlow et al. 2006). Potential Effects on Marine Mammals The effects of sounds from airguns might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbances, and at least in theory, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson *et al.* , 1995; Gordon *et al.* , 2004; Nowacek *et al.* , 2007). However, it is unlikely that there would be any cases of temporary or especially permanent hearing impairment or any significant non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Also, behavioral disturbance is expected to be limited to relatively short distances. The notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 71625, December 18, 2007) included a discussion of the effects of sounds from airguns on mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds, including tolerance, masking, behavioral disturbance, hearing impairment, and other non-auditory physical effects. Additional information on the behavioral reactions (or lack thereof) by all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels can be found in Appendix C

(e)of L-DEO's application. The notice of the proposed IHA also included a discussion of the potential effects of the bathymetric sonar and the sub-bottom profiler. Because of the shape of the beams of these sources and their power, NMFS believes it unlikely that marine mammals will be exposed to either the bathymetric sonar or the SBP at levels at or above those likely to cause harassment. Further, NMFS believes that the brief exposure of cetaceans or pinnipeds to few signals from the multi-beam bathymetric sonar system are not likely to result in the harassment of marine mammals. Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment The notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 71625, December 18, 2007) included an in-depth discussion of the methods used to calculate the densities of the marine mammals in the area of the seismic survey and the take estimates. Additional information was included in L-DEO's application. A summary is included here. All anticipated takes authorized by this IHA are Level B harassment only, involving temporary changes in behavior. The two far right columns in Table 2, “Auth Take in Carib. Sea” and “Auth Take in ETP”, display the numbers for which take is authorized in each ocean basin. Take calculations were based on maximum exposure estimates (based on maximum density estimates) vs. best estimates and are based on the 160-dB isopleth of a larger array of airguns. Given these considerations, the predicted number of marine mammals that might be exposed to sounds 160 dB may be somewhat overestimated. Extensive marine mammal surveys have been conducted in the eastern tropical Pacific over numerous years (e.g., Polacheck, 1987; Wade and Gerrodette, 1993; Kinsey *et al.* , 1999, 2000, 2001; Ferguson and Barlow, 2001; Smultea and Holst, 2003; Jackson *et al.* , 2004; Holst *et al.* , 2005a; May-Collado *et al.* , 2005). Therefore, for the Pacific portion of the proposed seismic survey, marine mammal density data were readily available. The most comprehensive data available for the region encompassing the proposed survey area are from Ferguson and Barlow

(2001)and Holst *et al.* (2005a). For the Caribbean portion of the Central American SubFac program, we were unable to find published data on marine mammal densities in or immediately adjacent to the seismic survey area. The closest quantitative surveys were conducted in the southeast Caribbean (Swartz and Burks, 2000; Swartz *et al.* , 2001; Smultea *et al.* , 2004). Most of the survey effort by Swartz and Burks

(2000)and Swartz *et al.*

(2001)took place during March and April near the islands on the east side of the Caribbean Sea and near the north and northeast coasts of Venezuela in water depths <1,000 m (3,280 ft). Survey data from Smultea *et al.*

(2004)were collected north of Venezuela during April-June in association with a previous L-DEO seismic survey. The L-DEO survey will occur from February-March in the western Caribbean Sea, a location and time of year in which the species densities are likely different from those during the above-mentioned surveys in the southeast Caribbean, but these surveys are the best available data at this time. Except for dwarf sperm whales, the per-species take estimates fall within 3 percent (dwarf sperm whale takes are 7.64 percent) of the numbers estimated to be present during a localized survey in the Pacific Ocean off the coasts of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and the affected species range far beyond the Pacific Ocean (i.e., the abundance of the species is notably larger). Therefore, NMFS believes that the estimated take numbers for these affected species are relatively small. Similarly, the per-species take estimates are less than 1 percent (except killer (7.52 percent) and Bryde's (8.57 percent) whales) of the numbers estimated to be present during a localized survey in the Caribbean Sea off the coasts of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and the species range far beyond the Caribbean (i.e., the abundance of the species is notably larger). Therefore, NMFS believes that the estimated take numbers for these species are relatively small. No pinnipeds are expected to be encountered in the Caribbean, and the likelihood of encountering sea lions or other pinnipeds in the Pacific study area is also very low. No take of any pinniped species is authorized. Potential Effects on Habitat A detailed discussion of the potential effects of this action on marine mammal habitat, including physiological and behavioral effects on marine fish and invertebrates, was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 71625, December 18, 2007). Based on the discussion in the proposed IHA and the nature of the activities (limited duration), the authorized 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. Similarly, any effects to food sources are expected to be negligible. Monitoring Vessel-based Visual Monitoring Vessel-based marine mammal visual observers (MMVOs) will be based aboard the seismic source vessel and will watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun operations and during start-ups of airguns at night. MMVOs will also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of airgun operations after an extended shutdown of the airguns. When feasible, MMVOs will also make observations during daytime periods when the seismic system is not operating for comparison of animal abundance and behavior. Based on MMVO observations, airguns will be powered down, or if necessary, shut down completely (see below), when marine mammals are detected within or about to enter a designated safety radius. The MMVOs will continue to maintain watch to determine when the animal(s) are outside the safety radius, and airgun operations will not resume until the animal has left that zone. The safety radius is a region in which a possibility exists of adverse effects on animal hearing or other physical effects. During seismic operations off Central America, at least three observers will be based aboard the *Langseth* . MMVOs will be appointed by L-DEO with NMFS concurrence. At least one MMVO, and when practical two, will monitor the safety radii for marine mammals during daytime operations and nighttime startups of the airguns. MMVO(s) will be on duty in shifts of duration no longer than 4 hours. The crew will also be instructed to assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements (if practical). The *Langseth* is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations. When stationed on the observation platform, the eye level will be approximately 17.8 m (58.4 ft) above sea level, and the observer will have a good view around the entire vessel. During daytime, the MMVO(s) will scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7x50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25x150), and with the naked eye. During darkness, NVDs will be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular-image intensifier or equivalent). Laser rangefinding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation. Passive Acoustic Monitoring PAM will take place to complement the visual monitoring program. Visual monitoring typically is not effective during periods of bad weather or at night, and even with good visibility, is unable to detect marine mammals when they are below the surface or beyond visual range. Acoustic monitoring can be used in addition to visual observations to improve detection, identification, localization, and tracking of cetaceans. It is only useful when marine mammals call, but it can be effective either by day or by night and does not depend on good visibility. The acoustic monitoring will serve to alert visual observers (if on duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are detected. It will be monitored in real time so visual observers can be advised when cetaceans are detected. When bearings (primary and mirror-image) to calling cetacean(s) are determined, the bearings will be relayed to the visual observer to help him/her sight the calling animal(s). SEAMAP (Houston, Texas) will be used as the primary acoustic monitoring system. This system was also used during several previous L-DEO seismic cruises (e.g., Smultea *et al.* , 2004, 2005; Holst *et al.* , 2005a,b). A description of the PAM system was given in the notice of the proposed IHA (72 FR 71625, December 18, 2007). While the *Langseth* is in the seismic survey area, the towed hydrophone array will be monitored 24 hours per day while at the survey area during airgun operations and also during most periods when the *Langseth* is underway with the airguns not operating. One MMO will monitor the acoustic detection system at any one time, by listening to the signals from two channels via headphones and/or speakers and watching the real time spectrographic display for frequency ranges produced by cetaceans. MMOs monitoring the acoustical data will be on shift for 1-6 hours. All MMOs are expected to rotate through the PAM position, although the most experienced with acoustics will be on PAM duty more frequently. When a cetacean vocalization is detected, the acoustic MMO will, if visual observations are in progress, contact the MMVO immediately to alert him/her to the presence of the vocalizing marine mammal(s). The information regarding the call will be entered into a database. The data to be entered include an acoustic encounter identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional information was recorded, position and water depth when first detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, strength of signal, etc.), and any other notable information. The acoustic detection can also be recorded for further analysis. MMVO Data and Documentation MMVOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document any apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate the numbers of mammals potentially “taken” by harassment. They will also provide information needed to order a power-down or shutdown of airguns when marine mammals are within or near the relevant safety radius. When a 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 the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc. and including responses to ramp-up), and behavioral pace.

(2)Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (including number of airguns operating and whether in state or ramp-up, power-down, or full power), 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, as well as information regarding airgun power down and shutdown, will be recorded in a standardized format. Data accuracy will be verified by the MMVOs at sea, and preliminary reports will be prepared during the field program and summaries forwarded to the operating institution's shore facility and to NSF weekly or more frequently. MMVO observations will provide the following information:

(1)The basis for decisions about powering down or shutting down airgun arrays.

(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)Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity. Mitigation Mitigation and monitoring measures proposed to be implemented for the proposed seismic survey have been developed and refined during previous L-DEO seismic studies and associated environmental assessments (EAs), IHA applications, and IHAs. The mitigation and monitoring measures described herein represent a combination of the procedures required by past IHAs for other similar projects and on recommended best practices in Richardson *et al.* (1995), Pierson *et al.* (1998), and Weir and Dolman (2007). The measures are described in detail below. Required mitigation measures include:

(1)speed or course alteration, provided that doing so will not compromise operational safety requirements;

(2)power-down procedures;

(3)shutdown procedures;

(4)ramp-up procedures; and

(5)minimizing approaches to slopes and submarine canyons, if possible, because of sensitivity of beaked whales. *Speed or Course Alteration* - If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius but is likely to enter it based on relative movement of the vessel and the animal, then if safety and scientific objectives allow, the vessel speed and/or course will be adjusted to minimize the likelihood of the animal entering the safety radius. Major course and speed adjustments are often impractical when towing long seismic streamers and large source arrays, thus for surveys involving large sources, alternative mitigation measures are required. *Power-down Procedures* - A power-down involves reducing the number of operating airguns, typically to a single airgun (e.g., 40 in 3 ), to minimize the safety radius, so that marine mammals are no longer in or about to enter this zone. A power-down of the airgun array to a reduced number of operating airguns may also occur when the vessel is moving from one seismic line to another. The continued operation of at least one airgun is intended to alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel in the area. If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius but is likely to enter it, and if the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed, the airguns will be powered down to a single airgun before the animal is within the safety radius. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the safety radius when first detected, the airguns will be powered down immediately. If a marine mammal is detected within or near the smaller safety radius around that single airgun (see Table 1), all airguns will be shutdown (see next subsection). Following a power down, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal is outside the safety radius for the full array. The animal will be considered to have cleared the safety radius if it:

(1)Is visually observed to have left the safety radius; or

(2)Has not been seen within the safety radius for 15 minutes in the case of small odontocetes and pinnipeds; or

(3)Has not been seen within the safety radius for 30 minutes in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked whales. Following a power-down and subsequent animal departure as above, the airgun array will resume operations following ramp-up procedures described below. *Shutdown Procedures* - The operating airgun(s) will be shutdown if a marine mammal is detected within the safety radius of a single 40 in3 airgun while the airgun array is at full volume or during a power down. Airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety radius or until the MMVO is confident that the animal has left the vicinity of the vessel. Criteria for judging that the animal has cleared the safety radius will be as described in the preceding subsection. *Ramp-up Procedures* - A ramp-up procedure will be followed when the airgun array begins operating after a specified-duration period without airgun operations or when a power-down has exceeded that period. For the present cruise, this period would be approximately 8 min. This period is based on the modeled 180-dB radius for the 36-airgun array (see Table 1) in relation to the planned speed of the *Langseth* while shooting in deep water. Similar periods (approximately 8-10 min) were used during previous L-DEO surveys. Ramp-up from a state of no airgun operations will begin with the smallest airgun in the array (40 in 3 ). Airguns will be added in a sequence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5-minute period over a total duration of approximately 20-40 min. Ramp-up from a reduced power state, such as during maintenance of an airgun string while the remaining string continues to fire would include the start-up of the returned string. During ramp-up, the MMVOs will monitor the safety radius, and if marine mammals are sighted, a course/speed change, power-down, or shutdown will be implemented as though the full array were operational. Initiation of ramp-up procedures from shutdown requires that the full safety radius must be visible by the MMVOs, whether conducted in daytime or nighttime. This requirement will effectively preclude start ups at night or in thick fog because the outer part of the safety radius for that array will not be visible during those conditions. Ramp-up is allowed from a power-down under reduced visibility conditions only if at least one airgun (e.g., 40 in 3 or similar ) has operated continuously throughout the survey without interruption, on the assumption that marine mammals will be alerted to the approaching seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and could move away if they choose. Ramp-up of the airguns will not be initiated if a marine mammal is sighted within or near the applicable Safety radius during the day or close to the vessel at night. *Minimize Approach to Slopes and Submarine Canyons* - Although sensitivity of beaked whales to airguns is not known, they appear to be sensitive to other sound sources (e.g., mid-frequency sonar). Beaked whales tend to concentrate in continental slope areas and in areas where there are submarine canyons. There are no submarine canyons within or near the study area. Three of the transect lines are on the continental slope, which accounts for only a small portion of the proposed study area (207 km; 128.6 mi) and a minimal amount of time (30 hours). Reporting A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals 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, all 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

(ESA)Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, NSF has consulted with the NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division on this seismic survey. NMFS has also consulted internally pursuant to section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. NMFS has issued a Biological Opinion (BiOp), which concluded that the proposed action and issuance of an IHA are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of blue, fin, humpback and sperm whales and green, hawksbill, leatherback, loggerhead, and olive ridley sea turtles. The BiOp also concluded that the proposed action would have no effect on critical habitat since none has been designated within the action area. The BiOp also made a not likely to be adversely affected finding for sei whales, Kemp's ridley sea turtles, and elkhorn and staghorn corals. An incidental take statement

(ITS)will be issued for the take of blue, fin, humpback, and sperm whales and green, hawksbill, leatherback, loggerhead, and olive ridley sea turtles. Relevant Terms and Conditions of the ITS have been incorporated into the IHA. NSF and L-DEO made a “no effects” determination for this seismic survey regarding the West Indian manatee. The USFWS concurred with this determination since activities would occur at least 8 km (5 mi) from shore in water depths greater than 20 m (65.6 ft). Also, no support vessels would be sent from shore during the cruise. Based on these parameters, a USFWS consultation was not required for this action. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)NSF prepared an Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V *Marcus G. Langseth* off Central America, January-March 2008. NMFS has adopted NSF's EA and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact for the issuance of the IHA. Determinations NMFS has determined that the impact of conducting the seismic survey in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea off Central America may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior (Level B Harassment) of small numbers of 26 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 action. This negligible impact determination is supported by:

(1)the likelihood that, given sufficient notice through relatively slow ship speed, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that is annoying prior to it becoming potentially injurious;

(2)the fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 40 m (131 ft) in deep water, 60 m (197 ft) at intermediate depths, or 296 m (971 ft) in shallow water when a single airgun is in use from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (180 dB) believed to have even a minimal chance of causing TTS;

(3)the fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 950 m (0.5 nm) in deep water, 1,425 m (0.8 nm) at intermediate depths, and 3,694 m (2 nm) in shallow water when the full array is in use at a 9 m (29.5 ft) tow depth from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (180 dB) believed to have even a minimal chance of causing TTS;

(4)the fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 1,120 m (0.6 nm) in deep water, 1,680 m (0.9 nm) at intermediate depths, and 4,356 m (2.4 nm) in shallow water when the full array is in use at a 12 m (39 ft) tow depth from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (180 dB) believed to have even a minimal chance of causing TTS;

(5)the likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is good at those distances from the vessel;

(6)the use of PAM, which is effective out to 10s of km, will assist in the detection of vocalizing marine mammals at greater distances from the vessel; and

(7)the incorporation of other required mitigation measures (i.e., ramp-up, power-down, and shutdown). 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 required 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, a small 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. Authorization As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to L-DEO for conducting a marine geophysical survey in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea off Central America from February-April, 2008, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: February 14, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-3256 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF10 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; An On-ice Marine Geophysical and Seismic Programs in the U.S. Beaufort Sea AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of issuance of three 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 Level-B harassment, incidental to conducting on-ice marine geophysical research and seismic surveys by CGGVeritas (Veritas) and Shell Offshore, Inc.

(SOI)in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, have been issued for a period of one year from the IHAs effective date. DATES: These authorizations are effective from February 15, 2008, until February 14, 2009. ADDRESSES: Copies of the applications, IHAs, the *Environmental Assessment

(EA)on Regulations Governing the Taking of ringed and Bearded Seals Incidental to On-ice Seismic Activities in the Beaufort Sea* (NMFS' 1998 EA), the 2008 *Supplemental Environmental Assessment on the Issuance of Three Incidental Harassment Authorizations to Take Marine Mammals by Harassment Incidental to Conducting On-ice Seismic Survey Operations in the U.S. Beaufort Sea* (SEA), 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 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 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 approve or disapprove the request for authorization. Summary of Request On August 8 and 14, 2007, NMFS received two applications from Veritas for the taking, by harassment, of three species of marine mammals incidental to conducting on-ice seismic surveys in Smith Bay and Pt. Thomson areas of the U.S. Beaufort Sea. On September 10, 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 survey program offshore west of Simpson Lagoon, U.S. Beaufort Sea. Veritas plans to acquire 3D seismic data within the months of February - May, 2008. The energy source for the proposed activity will be vibroseis. The proposed SOI on-ice seismic survey will also use vibroseis as energy sources, and is scheduled to begin in early March 2008 with camp mobilization expected to begin approximately March 11 from Oliktok Point. No under-ice acoustic sources would be deployed during the on-ice marine seismic program. Data acquisition will begin in mid-March and continue for approximately 60 days until mid-May, followed by camp demobilization to Oliktok Point. Description of the Activity Veritas The first specified geographic region of Veritas activities is a 569-km 2 (220-mi2) area extending across Smith Bay from point of entry from the west at approximately 71°06'00.05″ N, 154°30'21.00″ W to the east at point of exit to land at approximately 70°54'37.03″ N, 153°46'43.43″ W. Water depths in most (> 80 percent) of the area are less than 10 ft (3 m) based on bathymetry charts. The second specified geographic area is a 276-km 2 (107-mi 2 ) area extending across the Beaufort Sea from point of entry from the southwest corner at approximately 70°10'41.84″N, 146°43'03.36″W to the northwest corner at approximately 70°14'52.92″N, 146°42'15.21″W to the southeast corner at approximately 70°08'43.98″N, 145°58'10.70″W to the northeast corner off of Flaxman Island at approximately 70°11'28.82″N, 145°54'11.46″W. Water depths in most (> 75 percent) of the area are less than 10 ft (3 m) based on bathymetry charts. The proposed vibroseis operations for the Veritas' on-ice seismic project is expected to cover 1,345 line-miles (2,164 km). SOI The proposed SOI on-ice marine geophysical (seismic) program would be conducted over 10 to 20 MMS Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS)lease blocks located offshore from Oliktok Point in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. The proposed program location is in the vicinity of Thetis and Spy Islands, north-northwest of Oliktok Point. The majority of the OCS blocks covered in the proposed program are surrounding the 33 ft (10 m) water depth contour. Assuming seismic acquisition occurred over up to 20 OCS blocks, the proposed on-ice seismic project would cover a maximum estimated 3,000 line-miles (4,828 km) of surveying within a 265 mi2 (686 km2) area. Detailed descriptions of these activities were published in the **Federal Register** on November 30, 2007 (72 FR 67713). No changes have been made to these proposed on-ice seismic survey activities. Comments and Responses A notice of receipt and request for public comment on the application and proposed authorization was published on November 30, 2007 (72 FR 67713). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received the following comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the North Slope Borough (NSB), the North Alaska Environmental Center (NAEC), and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). 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. *Comment 1:* The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the IHAs subject to the mitigation measures proposed in the November 30, 2007, **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713). The Commission recommends further that any authorization issued specify that, if a mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal occurs that appears to be related to the applicants' operations, activities will be suspended until NMFS has

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

(2)issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. *Response:* NMFS agrees with the Commission's comments and recommendation that the applicants must implement monitoring and mitigation measures to achieve the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks that may be exposed to the on-ice seismic activities. As described below, NMFS is requiring the applicants to implement a number of measures to reduce the level of impact on seals, which may be found within the vicinity of the projects. NMFS agrees further with the Commission that on-ice seismic operations must be suspended immediately if a dead or injured marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the project areas and the death or injury of the animal could be attributable to the applicants' activities. This requirement is a condition in the IHA. *Comment 2:* The Commission recommends that if other species marine mammals (e.g., beluga whales or bowhead whales) are observed in the vicinity of the surveys, activities be suspended until the animals depart or authorization to take such species is issued. *Response:* NMFS agrees with the Commission's recommendation that if marine mammals not covered by these IHAs are observed within the vicinity of the survey areas and it is determined that on-ice seismic activities could adversely affect these marine mammals, the activities be suspended until the animals depart or authorization to take such species is granted. NMFS considers it is extremely unlikely, however, that beluga whales or bowhead whales will be present in the vicinity of the on-ice seismic operations. Due to safety reasons, these on-ice seismic operations can only be conducted in areas with 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 and it is very unlikely cetacean species would be found near the project locations. *Comment 3:* CBD argued that NMFS cannot lawfully issue IHAs because the proposed activities “have the potential to result in serious injury or mortality to marine mammals.” Rather, NMFS is required to promulgate regulations pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A) to authorize take by injury or mortality. Specifically, CBD notes that because these activities will occur during the pupping season for ringed seals, there is a likelihood they will be killed by vehicles or they will be driven into the water prematurely, and therefore, unable to survive. (CBD cited a 2003 NRC report that at least one ringed seal pup was killed by a bulldozer clearing seismic lines on the shore-fast. *Response:* NMFS does not agree with CBD's argument and believes the risk of injury or mortality from these activities is minimal. The **Federal Register** notice published on November 30, 2007 (72 FR 67713), provided a detailed description of the proposed activities, the potential impacts to marine mammals resulting from on-ice seismic surveys, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures. All project areas with water deeper than 3 m (9.9 ft) would be surveyed by trained seal lair sniffing dogs to locate ringed seal (not “ring seal” as mentioned in the CBD's comment) lairs prior to the start of any activities. All locations of seal structure would be marked and protected by a 150 m (490 ft) exclusion zone, within which seal structures could suffer damages (NMFS, 1998). The applicants would be prohibited therefore, from conducting any on-ice seismic activities within these areas. Trained seal lair sniffing dogs were used in previous on-ice activities in the U.S. Beaufort Sea (e.g., Smith and Codere, 2007) and have proven to be an effective way to locate seal structures during pre-activity surveys, thereby helping to avoid pinniped injuries or deaths that may result from moving vehicles running over seal lairs (Smith and Codere, 2007). The NRC

(2003)example in CBD's comment that a ringed seal pup was killed by a bulldozer was due to ice road construction. The proposed on-ice seismic surveys would not require the construction of ice roads and that the affected footprint is small. In addition, as mentioned in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713), the applicants' vehicles would be required to avoid any pressure ridges, ice ridges, and ice deformation areas where seal structures may be present. With these monitoring and mitigation measures, it is extremely unlikely that marine mammals could be injured or killed as a result of the proposed on-ice seismic survey. *Comment 4:* CBD states that the proposed authorizations “are legally infirm as they rely on a regulatory definition of 'small numbers' that is at odds with the statute and has been struck down by the courts.” CBD states further that by relying on the existing definition, NMFS is “committing prejudicial error rendering the IHAs invalid.” *Response:* NFMS does not agree with CBD's statement. The “small numbers” of ringed, bearded, and spotted seals that could be affected by the proposed on-ice seismic operations were analyzed and these numbers were compared to the relative population size of these species. As discussed in the previous **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713, November 30, 2007), it is estimated that up to 984 ringed seals (0.39 percent of estimated total Alaska population of 249,000) could be taken by Level B harassment due to Veritas' Smith Bay on-ice seismic survey, up to 477 ringed seals (0.19 percent of the total Alaska population) by Veritas' Pt. Thomson on-ice seismic surveys, and up to 1,187 ringed seals (0.47 percent of the total Alaska population) by SOI's on-ice geophysical program. 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 that much fewer bearded and spotted seals would be subject to takes by Level B harassment since their occurrence is very low within the proposed project areas, especially during spring (Moulton and Lawson, 2002; Treacy, 2002a; 2002b; Bengtson *et al.* , 2005). Consequently, the levels of take of these two pinniped species by Level B harassment within the proposed project areas would represent only small fractions of the total population sizes of these species in Beaufort Sea. *Comment 5:* CBD states that NMFS did not make a separate finding that only “small numbers” of ringed seals, spotted seals, and bearded seals would be harassed by Veritas and Shell's planned activities in the proposed IHAs. NSB also states that without density information for bearded and spotted seals within the proposed project area, NMFS cannot grant IHAs under the MMPA. *Response:* NMFS does not agree with CBD's statement. The November 30, 2007, **Federal Register** notice for the proposed IHAs identified the number of ringed seals expected to be taken by these activities. NMFS estimates that up to 984 ringed seals (0.39 percent of the estimated total Alaska population of 249,000) could be taken by Level B harassment due to Veritas' Smith Bay on-ice seismic survey; up to 477 ringed seals (0.19 percent of the estimated total Alaska population) by Veritas' Pt. Thomson on-ice seismic surveys; and up to 1,187 seals (0.47 percent of the estimated total Alaskan population) by SOI's on-ice geographical program. While NMFS was not able to develop a specific estimate of take for spotted and bearded seals due to data limitations, NMFS described, as highlighted below, that take of these other species is likely to be extremely low due to their infrequent occurrence in the project area. NMFS has evaluated the projects and the level of take that could result from each on-ice seismic activity. NMFS finds, based on its evaluation of each of the three activities and the best available information that the number of ringed seal take is small relative to the overall affected population of the species. Regarding NSB's concern, the **Federal Register** notice stated that “it is expected much fewer bearded and spotted seals would subject to takes by Level B harassment since their occurrence is very low within the proposed project areas, especially during spring (Moulton and Lawson, 2002; Treacy, 2002a; 2002b; Bengtson *et al.* , 2005). Consequently, the levels of take of these two pinniped species by Level B harassment within the proposed project areas would represent only small fractions of the total population sizes of these species in Beaufort Sea.” NMFS relied on the best available information to determine the overall density estimates of spotted and bearded seals. Specifically, early estimates of bearded seals in the Bering and Chukchi seas range from 250,000 to 300,000 (Popov, 1976; Burns, 1981), and for spotted seals in the Bering Sea was 335,000 to 450,000 (Burns, 1973). In addition, these seals tend to congregate in areas with broken pack ice or along the ice edge, which are to be avoided by the proposed on-ice seismic operations due to safety reasons. Therefore, NMFS believes any take, if any, of spotted and bearded seals would be small relative to their overall estimated population. Please refer to the **Federal Register** notice for detailed information regarding the number of marine mammals expected to be taken for the proposed activities and the methods of calculating these numbers. *Comment 6:* Citing NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), CBD asserts that NMFS cannot make a “negligible impact” finding for the Veritas and SOI projects because NMFS does not have accurate information on the status of spotted seals, bearded seals, and ringed seals. NSB and NAEC are also concerned that no adequate information is available on bearded and spotted seals. *Response:* NMFS does not agree with CBD's argument that a “rational negligible impact finding” cannot be made because of a lack of accurate or reliable data. Although the SAR stated that no up-to-date population estimates are available for these three species, recent population estimates from many studies point out that the population levels of these species are healthy and stable (e.g., ringed seal: Moulton *et al.* , 2002; Frost *et al.* , 2002; 2004; Bengtson *et al.* , 2005; spotted seal: Frost *et al.* , 1993: spotted seal; Lowry *et al.* , 1994; bearded seal: Bengtson *et al.* , 2000; Bengtson *et al.* , 2005). In addition, none of the species in question is listed under the Endangered Species Act, and the SAR clearly states that due to a very low level of interactions between U.S. commercial fisheries and ringed, bearded, and spotted seals, the species are not considered a strategic stock (Angliss and Outlaw, 2007). Moreover, NMFS has reviewed each of the applications carefully and determined that no more than Level-B harassment of pinnipeds for each on-ice seismic survey would occur. Any animals that could be exposed to vibroseis would likely experience short-term annoyance as supported by prior studies (Burns and Kelly, 1982; Lyderseen and Hammill, 1993), because seals will not be physically harmed by on-ice seismic operations. In addition, because of the required mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS is confident that any impacts, if at all, to pinnipeds resulting from the on-ice seismic surveys would be short-term and of little consequence. NMFS has reviewed Veritas' applications carefully and it is clear that Veritas did request both of their IHAs to have Level B harassment of up to 10 bearded seals for each on-ice seismic activity. Please refer to Response to Comment 5 for additional information regarding take information for bearded and spotted seals. *Comment 7:* CBD comments that in making its “negligible impact” determinations, NMFS must give the benefit of the doubt to the species. CBD implies that NMFS should adopt a precautionary approach when dealing with situations in which the population status of a species is unknown, and therefore, the true impacts of a project on the species cannot be ascertained. *Response:* NMFS does not agree with CBD's argument that a precautionary approach should be employed for the on-ice seismic surveys. Moreover, CBD has not presented NMFS with any data to support its contention that the precautionary approach should apply in this case. NMFS has reviewed the available literature and concluded that the most recent population estimate for ringed seals in Alaska is 249,000 animals. As described in Response to Comment 5, NMFS determined that take, by Level-B harassment of ringed seals within the project areas would result in no more than a negligible impact, because the number of seals that would be taken by Level B harassment represents only a small fraction of the Alaska population. Although there is no up-to-date assessment of the population level of Alaska ringed seal stock, there is no reason to believe that this population is declining or would be adversely affected by the proposed activities (Angliss and Outlaw, 2007). Early estimates of bearded seals in the Bering and Chukchi seas range from 250,000 to 300,000 (Popov, 1976; Burns, 1981), and for spotted seals in the Bering Sea was 335,000 to 450,000 (Burns, 1973). Although there is no reliable recent population estimates for these two species, there is no reason to believe that these populations suffered significant decline. Therefore, according to NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports, it is recommended that the pinniped maximum theoretical net productivity rate of 12 percent be employed for these stocks (Wade and Angliss, 1997). In addition, since bearded and spotted seals occur mainly in areas with broken pack ice or along the ice edge (Burns, 1967; Lowry *et al.* , 1998), which are areas avoided by the proposed on-ice seismic operations for safety reasons, it is expected that Level B harassment from the proposed on-ice activities would be rare. Therefore, the precautionary approach is not appropriate given their infrequent occurrence in the project areas. Moreover, NMFS will require the IHA holders to implement specific mitigation and monitoring measures, which are expected to avoid the possibility of injury or mortality and reduce the likelihood of behavioral harassment. Please refer to the **Federal Register** for detailed information on the impact analyses and a detailed description on the proposed monitoring, mitigation, and reporting measures for the Veritas and SOI's planned on-ice activities. *Comment 8:* CBD argues that further cumulative environmental impact analysis would be particularly important for species such as the spotted seal, which has a very small Beaufort Sea population. *Response* Regarding the cumulative environmental impact analysis, please refer to *Response* to *Comment 9* below. NMFS has also assessed the potential cumulative impacts of these IHAs in conjunction with other industrial activities in our Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the 2008 On-Ice Seismic Activities. There is no scientifically-recognized Beaufort Sea population of spotted seals. The Alaska spotted seal stock is the only population found in U.S. waters and recognized under the MMPA (Angliss and Outlaw, 2007). Based on satellite tagging studies, spotted seals migrate south from the Chukchi Sea in October and pass through the Bering Strait in November and overwinter in the Bering Sea along the ice edge (Lowry *et al.* , 1998). During spring they tend to prefer small floes (i.e., < 20 m in diameter), and inhabit mainly the southern margin of the ice, with movement to coastal habitats after the retreat of the sea ice (Fay 1974; Shaughnessy and Fay, 1977; Simpkins *et al.* , 2003), therefore, they are rarely found within the proposed on-ice project areas which require ice thickness of at least 4 ft (1.2 m) for safety reasons. *Comment 9:* CBD asserts that NMFS' negligible impact finding for pinnipeds under the MMPA is “suspect” because NMFS has failed to consider the cumulative impacts of numerous industrial activities (including other Arctic oil and gas development activities) and global warming. *Response:* Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA allows citizens of the United States to take by harassment, small numbers of marine mammals incidental to a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if NMFS is able to make certain findings. NMFS must issue an incidental harassment authorization if 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 if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. Pursuant to NEPA, NMFS is required to analyze the potential environmental effects of its actions. As part of the NEPA analysis (e.g., an EIS or EA), NMFS is required to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed action along with a reasonable range of alternatives, including the proposed action. NMFS has decided to issue 3 incidental harassment authorizations to Veritas and SOI, to take, by no more than Level B harassment, small numbers of marine mammals incidental to their proposed on-ice seismic surveys in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. After careful consideration of the proposed activities, and having considered the context in which these activities would occur, NMFS has determined that the proposed activities:

(1)would not result in more than behavioral harassment (i.e., Level B) of small numbers of marine mammal species or stocks;

(2)would not result in more than a negligible impact;

(3)would not lead to an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses; and

(4)would be unlikely to directly, indirectly or cumulatively cause significant impacts to the human environment. In reaching these conclusions, NMFS gave careful consideration to a number of issues and sources of information. In particular, NMFS assessed the potential direct impacts of the 2008 on-ice seismic surveys, the cumulative impacts from multiple activities in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, and the effects of climate change in the context of the specified activity and other activities occurring in the Beaufort Sea. NMFS relied upon a number of scientific reports, including its most recent Alaska marine mammal stock assessment to support its findings (Angliss and Outlaw, 2007). The stock assessment contains a description of each marine mammal stock, its geographic range, a minimum population estimate, current population trends, current and maximum net productivity rates, optimum sustainable population levels and allowable removal levels, and estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury through interactions with commercial fisheries and subsistence hunters. NMFS also considered, to the extent the data exists, the potential impacts of climate change on pinniped populations. NMFS recognizes that climate change is a concern for the sustainability of the entire Arctic ecosystem and has reviewed the available literature and stock assessment reports to support its negligible impact determination and finding of no significant impact. Moreover, according to a number of scientific studies, population levels of ringed, spotted and bearded seals are healthy and stable, with none being listed under the ESA or considered strategic stocks for purposes of the MMPA. This information affirms NMFS' position that these pinniped populations can sustain the short-term, localized impacts from the 2008 on-ice seismic surveys. In addition, NMFS analyzed in its NEPA documents the effects of the proposed 2008 on-ice seismic surveys and the cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities conducted in the Arctic region, and concluded that impacts to marine mammals, particularly pinnipeds would be insignificant. NMFS anticipates that any pinnipeds exposed to vibroseis would be annoyed for a short period of time and would not experience physical harm. While there is a greater likelihood that larger numbers of ringed seals could be exposed to vibroseis (principally because of their higher occurrence in the project area and dependence upon thicker ice than spotted or bearded seals), NMFS does not believe that this species would be negatively impacted by the on-ice seismic surveys. Furthermore, the required mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to reduce the likelihood or severity of any impacts to pinnipeds over the course of the 2008 survey season. With respect to cumulative impacts, NMFS evaluated a number of other activities that could impact marine mammals, and concluded that the incremental impact of the on-ice seismic surveys, combined with these other activities are not likely to result in a significant impact on the human environment. Finally, NMFS considered whether climate change could impact ice-dependent species such as ringed, spotted and bearded seals and acknowledged that reductions in sea ice could adversely affect pinniped production. However, it is unclear at this time the extent to which climate change contributes to a reduction in pinniped habitat or pinniped productivity. Any future oil and gas exploration or extraction activities and permit reviews would likely need to undertake similar analyses to determine how global warming may affect marine mammals in the Arctic region. *Comment 10:* CBD asserts that NMFS cannot make a finding that on-ice seismic activities would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence uses by Alaska Natives. *Response* NMFS disagrees with CBD. 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 areas where seismic operations would be conducted are small compared to the large Beaufort Sea subsistence hunting area associated with the extremely wide distribution of ringed seals. *Comment 11* CBD cites to the SOI IHA application and criticizes what it believes to be “nonsensical” mitigation measures, i.e., timing and locations for active seismic work during a time of year that has the least potential to affect marine mammals. *Response* NMFS agrees with CBD's assessment that the timing of Veritas and SOI's on-ice seismic surveys should not be viewed as a mitigation measure. Therefore, NMFS has not factored this element into its required mitigation and monitoring requirements. It is worth noting, however, that in the context of Arctic oil and gas exploration, NMFS believes on-ice vibroseis activities during the winter and spring have the potential to result in substantially fewer adverse effects to marine mammal species or stocks compared with open water seismic surveys. *Comment 12:* CBD points out the difference between **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713, November 30, 2007) and Veritas' IHA application regarding spaces between transect lines for pre-activity seal lair surveys. The **Federal Register** states that the transect lines will be spaced 250 m (820 ft) apart, while in Veritas' application the transect lines are proposed to be a quarter mile (402 m or 1,320 ft) apart. CBD also states that there is no explanation of the exclusion of seal-sniffing dog surveys in waters less than 3 meters deep. *Response* As stated in the November 30, 2007, **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713), NMFS proposed that pre-activity seal lair surveys be conducted with transect lines spaced 250 m (820 ft) apart. NMFS will require the applicants to conduct surveys with transect lines spaced 250 m apart. Based on aerial surveys of seals near BP's Northstar and Liberty sites between May and June, 2000, ringed seal densities in water depth between 0 - 3 m (0 - 9.8 ft) were much lower than densities observed in deeper strata (Moulton *et al.* , 2001). All these ringed seals were observed from a fixed-wing aircraft during surveys. Moulton *et al.*

(2001)also noted that most of the 0 - 2 m (0 - 6.6 ft) portion of the 0 - 3 m (0 - 9.8 ft) would be frozen solid in spring and could not be used by seals, not to mention seal lairs, and that the 2 - 3 m (6.6 - 9.8 ft) portion would be marginal habitat at best. Therefore, NMFS does not believe seal lair surveys by trained dogs are warranted. All seals hauled out on ice would be spotted before the on-ice activities and thus Level A harassment can be avoided. In addition, as mentioned in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713), the applicants' vehicles would be required to avoid any pressure ridges, ice ridges, and ice deformation areas where seal structures may be present, though unlikely in shallow water areas. *Comment 13:* CBD states that it submitted comments to the Minerals Management Services' (MMS') draft *Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Arctic Outer Continental Slope Seismic Surveys* (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2006-019)

(PEA)on May 10, 2006, and argues that NMFS cannot adopt that draft PEA because it had serious legal deficiencies. *Response* CBD must have commented on an outdated early draft version of the document, which has since been updated and superseded by the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment

(FPEA)on the *Arctic Ocean Outer Continental Shelf Seismic Surveys - 200* 6 (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2006-038) in June 2006. The draft PEA CBD commented on is not the correct document that NMFS listed in its November 30, 2007, **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713), therefore, its comments are irrelevant to the proposed IHAs. In addition, NMFS plans to use, instead, its 1998 Environmental Assessment

(EA)for a similar action with a Supplemental EA

(SEA)for the 2008 proposed on-ice seismic operations. Please refer to the “National Environmental Policy Act” section below for detailed information. *Comment 14:* NSB and NAEC point out that the MMS FPEA on the *Arctic Ocean Outer Continental Shelf Seismic Surveys - 2006* is for open water seismic surveys, instead of on-ice vibroseis. *Response* NMFS agrees with NSB and NAEC's comment that the MMS FPEA on the *Arctic Ocean Outer Continental Shelf Seismic Surveys - 2006* focuses on open water seismic instead of on-ice vibroseis. Therefore, based upon further consideration, NMFS has decided to rely on the EA prepared in 1998 with an newly prepared SEA for the analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Please refer to the NEPA section below for a detailed description. *Comment 15:* NSB states that none of the applications provided sufficient detail as to the exact locations where seismic activity would occur, and that Veritas' applications failed to include the attached program area maps. NSB further points out that depending on within which portion of this large proposed area would seismic operations be conducted, the impacts to marine mammal will be different as animals are not distributed evenly within the proposed project area. *Response* NMFS does not agree with NSB's comment. All applicants provided detailed information on the locations of their proposed on-ice seismic surveys, along with maps with clear boundaries. Although NMFS failed to post the maps of the Veritas' proposed on-ice activities, NMFS did make all documents available to the public through its November 30, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 67713) notice announcing receipt of the applications and request for public comments. NSB should have contacted NMFS if it was interested in viewing the maps. The exact location of the on-ice seismic surveys and transect routes will depend on suitable ice conditions and operational efficiency during the time of the activity, and the presence and absence of seal lairs after pre-activity surveys. The estimated takes are calculated and analyzed based on the maximum availability of marine mammals in the entire project areas. Since the actual on-ice activities would be conducted within portions of these areas that are analyzed, the actual impacts to marine mammals are expected to be lower. *Comment 16:* 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. *Response* NMFS does not agree with NSB's assessment. 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 are 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, Veritas and SOI will not operate in an area where the ice condition is thin enough to allow an open lead to develop. *Comment 17:* NSB states that it is not clear that all the seal breathing holes or lairs would be located. NSB states that not enough information is provided in the application to determine how frequently the surveys would be conducted and whether enough passes would be conducted to locate all the lairs. NSB further states that if birthing lairs are not located, it is possible that seals could be injured or killed by being crushed by seismic equipment. NSB requests NMFS to complete a statistical analysis of the detection rate of dogs in a given area relative to observed, or estimated, population densities. *Response* A detailed seal breathing holes and lairs survey protocol by trained seal lair sniffing dogs by transects that are spaced 250 m (820 ft) apart was described in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713, November 30, 2007), and is not repeated here. A more detailed report using seal lair-detecting dogs by Smith and Codere

(2007)is available upon request. This report 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 Veritas and 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 multiple dogs, which would further increase the detection rate. It is also important to understand that even though 100 percent of the ringed seals would not be detected within the proposed 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. A statistical analysis of the detection rate of dogs in a given area relative to observed, or estimated, population densities is beyond the scope of the issuance of the IHAs; however, NMFS will consider this analysis when adequate data become available. *Comment 18:* NSB states that it is possible that ringed seals could sustain hearing damage from the proposed on-ice seismic operations. NSB is also concerned that female ringed seals will likely remain near their pups even with considerable amounts of human activities, and could, therefore, be within the 190 dB zone of seismic activities if all lairs are not found. NSB points out that it is not possible to determine whether the 150 m (492 ft) exclusion zone from seal structures is sufficient. *Response* NMFS does not agree with NSB's assessment that ringed seals or any other pinnipeds could sustain hearing damage from exposure of sounds resulting from on-ice vibroseis. Although effective source levels of vibroseis arrays for horizontal propagation in water under the ice are uncertain, estimates range from at least 185 dB to 212 dB re 1 microPa (Holliday *et al.* , 1984; Malme *et al.* , 1989, Richardson et al., 1995), which is considerably lower than source levels for large arrays of airguns. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the received levels at 150 m (492 ft) would be close to 190 dB re 1 microPa and cause hearing damage or hearing threshold shifts to pinnipeds. In addition, the strongest energy is produced at frequencies sweeping from 10 to 70 Hz (Holliday *et al.* , 1984), which are below pinnipeds' hearing range. The 150 m (492 ft) exclusion zone is mainly used to reduce any Level B harassment caused by the vibration of the seismic vehicles and the presence of the survey crew, and it has been shown to be effective in providing protections to seal structures in several studies (e.g., Burns and Kelly, 1982) and previous on-ice seismic activities. *Comment 19:* NSB points out that Veritas failed to provide any information about whether a field camp would be used and how, where and when the seismic equipment and/or camps would travel. *Response* Although Veritas did not provide any information about whether a field camp would be used, the IHAs issued to Veritas and SOI require that no camps are allowed to be established within 150 m (492 ft) of seal lairs. All on-ice seismic operations (camp included) shall be conducted as far away as possible from seal structures. In addition, the IHAs further require that no ice road may be built between the mobile camp and work site. Travel between the mobile camp and work site shall also be monitored for marine mammals and be done by vehicles driving through on a snow road. Vehicles must avoid any pressure ridges, ice ridges, and ice deformation areas where seal structures are likely to be present. *Comment 20:* NAEC points out that the proposed IHA for SOI did not mention any other types of geophysical activities to be conducted by SOI, either during the winter or later in the year, therefore no other surveys can be covered by this proposed IHA. *Response* The proposed IHA to SOI would only cover SOI's on-ice geophysical program described in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713, November 30, 2007), within 10 to 20 MMS OCS lease blocks located offshore from Oliktok Point in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, in the vicinity of Thetis and Spy Islands, north-northwest of Oliktok Point. *Comment 21:* NAEC points out that SOI plans to conduct a number of additional geotechnical surveys this coming year, including during the time period of February to May 2008, which could add to the incidental take and activities which need to be addressed in NMFS proposed IHA review and NEPA analysis. *Response* SOI has no other projects planned for the time period of February through May 2008 within the on-ice marine seismic program boundary. SOI does plan on deploying Argos data buoys beginning mid-late January 2008 on Beaufort Sea ice in the Sivulliq area, which is approximately 60 mi (97 km) east of the 2008 on-ice marine seismic program area. At various times during the 2008 open water season, SOI also plans on conducting marine surveys, 3D seismic surveys, potentially a geotechnical survey, and an exploration-drilling program. However, those additional activities would be based on separate analyses on the potential impacts on marine mammals. Under the MMPA, if SOI plans to conduct future activities and wishes to obtain “take” coverage under section 101(a)(5) of the statute, SOI would need to contact NMFS and apply for incidental take permits of marine mammals if future activities could result in the take of marine mammal species or stocks. Any subsequent IHA applications from SOI for taking of marine mammals would be evaluated and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. *Comment 22:* NAEC points out that the MMS and NMFS have co-authored a draft programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, *Seismic Surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska* (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-001), and that since this NEPA process is still on-going, it needs to be completed with a Final EIS and decision prior to issuance of these incidental take authorizations. *Response* NMFS does not agree with NAEC's assessment. The draft programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, *Seismic Surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Alaska* (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-001) covers open water seismic surveys, not on-ice vibroseis. Please refer to *Response* to *Comment 14* above and the NEPA section below for additional information regarding NEPA review. *Comment 23:* NAEC states that even though polar bears are regulated by the USFWS, NMFS still has the obligation to consider the ecological relationships between this species and its primary food source, the ringed seals. *Response* Comment noted. However, as mentioned in the November 30, 2007, **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713) Veritas and SOI are seeking 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 analysis on ecological relationships between polar bears and their ringed seals are beyond the scope of the proposed IHAs. However, NMFS notes that no ringed seals will be removed from the population from the proposed action. *Comment 24:* NAEC states that NMFS has underestimated the impacts of the seismic surveys on ringed seals and ignored important documented impacts from past surveys and the effects to subsistence. NAEC states that NMFS did not mention that ringed seal lairs and pups have been crushed and the pups killed by past seismic surveys and other on-ice activities according to monitoring done for the Northstar project, and other scientific studies conducted by Dr. Brendan Kelly. *Response* NMFS does not agree with NAEC's statement. NAEC provided an incomplete description on NMFS analysis of the potential effects on marine mammals from on-ice seismic activities. In the “Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat” section of the November 30, 2007, **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713), NMFS stated that “[i]ncidental harassment to marine mammals could result from physical activities associated with on-ice seismic operations, which have the potential to disturb and temporarily displace some seals. For ringed seals, pup mortality could occur if any of these animals were nursing and displacement were protracted.” The analyses provided in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713, November 30, 2007) are based on the best scientific information available, including on-ice activities according to monitoring done for BP's Northstar project (e.g., William *et al.* , 2001; Moulton *et al.* , 2001; 2005; Williams *et al.* , 2006). In the report *Monitoring of Industrial Sounds, Seals, and Whale Calls During Construction of BP's Northstar Oil Development, Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 2000* (Richardson and Williams, 2001), the authors concluded that “[d]uring the 1999 - 2000 ice-covered season, no evidence of seal injuries or fatalities was evident, nor was it expected,” and that the expected 99 seals within the potential impact zone were taken by Level B harassment only. The report further stated that the monitoring results, “along with the presence of active structures near Northstar during the dog-assisted search in May 2000, indicate that effects of industrial activities were likely minor and localized.” In addition, the most recent studies by Moulton *et al.*

(2005)and Williams *et al.*

(2006)also showed 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. Although NMFS recognizes that in the past seal lairs have been crushed and at least one seal pup was killed by a bulldozer (NRC, 2003), however, those were caused by lack of adequate pre-activity seal lair surveys by trained dogs, as mentioned previously. The proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, described in this document below, will prevent serious injury and mortality to marine mammals and are also expected to reduce the potential for behavioral harassment. In calculating the estimated take of marine mammals, NMFS did use Dr. Brenden Kelly's research data (Kelly and Quakenbush, 1990). *Comment 25:* NAEC states that it is unclear whether the entire seismic survey line areas will be surveyed using trained dogs to identify lairs and how NMFS will ensure that this is done prior to the surveys. *Response* NMFS does not agree with NAEC's statement. As stated in the November 30, 2007, **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713), only areas with water and ice deeper than 3 m (9.8 ft) will be surveyed for seal lairs using trained dogs. Please refer to the **Federal Register** notice for a detailed description regarding on the pre-activity seal survey would be conducted. The IHAs to Veritas and SOI will require that they complete these pre-activity surveys before any on-ice seismic activities are carried out. *Comment 26:* NAEC states that NMFS failed to provide any analysis describing the subsistence use areas and nature of use for the Alaska Natives in Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Barrow. NAEC further states that there are no analysis of local or regional impacts to the seals or an assessment of the harm to the animals used by each community and the cumulative impacts. *Response* NMFS does not agree with NAEC's statement. As analyzed in the November 30, 2007, **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713), the on-ice seismic operations are not expected to have an unmitigable adverse impact on availability of marine mammal species and stocks for taking for subsistence uses because:

(1)operations would end before the spring ice breakup, when most subsistence harvest activities occur; and

(2)the areas where on-ice seismic operations would be conducted are small compared to the large Beaufort Sea subsistence hunting area associated with the extremely wide distribution of ringed seals. NMFS further described in the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713, November 30, 2007) that Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Barrow communities have been working closely with Veritas and SOI to ensure that there will be no unmitigable adverse impact to subsistence use of marine mammals as a result of the proposed on-ice seismic operations. Specific measures include hiring native advisors for the proposed on-ice seismic operations, and implement mitigation and monitoring measures to ensure the availability of seals to subsistence use. Please refer to “Potential Effects on Subsistence” section for a detailed description and update. *Comment 27:* NAEC points out that the NMFS failed to provide documentation that Shell or Veritas held plan of cooperation meetings in the affected communities for the seismic program proposed in the **Federal Register** notice, nor the results of those meetings or that plans of cooperation were agreed to by these communities to the agency. *Response* NMFS does not agree with NAEC's statement. In the **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713, November 30, 2007), NMFS stated that “Veritas will consult with the potentially affected subsistence communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and other stakeholder groups to develop a Plan of Cooperation,” and that “Plan of Cooperation meetings in the communities of Nuiqsut and Barrow are being held during October 2007 by SOI.” An update of additional meetings and their results are described in the “Potential Effects on Subsistence” section of this document. *Comment 28:* NAEC points out that the monitoring plans described by Veritas in its August 14, 2007, application are vague and NMFS should include additional requirements in Veritas' IHA. *Response* NAEC should refer to the November 30, 2007, **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 67713) and this document for a detailed description of monitoring measures. 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 largha* ), 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 marine 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. Veritas and SOI will seek a take Authorization from the 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 (2007), which is available at the following URL: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2006.pdf* . A more detailed description of these species and stocks within the proposed action area provided in the November 30, 2007, **Federal Register** (72 FR 67713). Therefore, it is not repeated here. Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat Incidental harassment to marine mammals could result from physical activities associated with on-ice seismic operations, which have the potential to disturb and temporarily displace some seals. For ringed seals, pup mortality could occur if any of these animals are nursing and displacement is 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. Ringed 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 activities, impacts to ringed seals from each project are expected to be negligible. The seismic surveys would only introduce low level acoustic energies into the water column and no objects would be released into the environment. In addition, the total footprint of the proposed seismic survey areas represent 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. Number of Marine Mammals Expected to Be Taken NMFS estimates that up to 984 ringed seals (0.39 percent of estimated total Alaska population of 249,000) could be taken by Level B harassment due to Veritas' Smith Bay on-ice seismic survey, up to 477 ringed seals (0.19 percent of the total Alaska population) by Veritas' Pt. Thomson on-ice seismic surveys, and up to 1,187 ringed seals (0.47 percent of the total Alaska population) by SOI's on-ice geophysical program. The estimated take numbers are based on consideration of the number of ringed seals that might be disturbed within each of the proposed project areas, calculated from the adjusted ringed seal density of 1.73 seal per km 2 (Kelly and Quakenbush, 1990). 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, since bearded and spotted seals mainly occur in areas with broken pack ice and along the ice edge (Burns, 1967; Lowry *et al.* , 1998), which are avoided by on-ice seismic operations for safety reasons, it is expected that significantly fewer, if any, bearded and spotted seals would be subject to takes by Level B harassment since their occurrence in these areas is very low (Moulton and Lawson, 2002; Treacy, 2002a; 2002b; Bengtson *et al.* , 2005). Consequently, the levels of take of these two pinniped species by Level B harassment within the proposed project areas would represent only small fractions of the total population sizes of these species in Beaufort Sea. In addition, NMFS expects that the actual take by Level B harassment from the proposed on-ice seismic programs would be much lower than the estimates due to 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 no more than negligible, and would be limited to distant and transient exposure. Potential Effects on Subsistence The affected pinniped species are all taken by subsistence hunters of the Beaufort Sea villages. However, on-ice seismic operations in the activity areas are not expected to have an unmitigable adverse impact on availability of these stocks for taking for subsistence uses because:

(1)Operations would end before the spring ice breakup, after which subsistence hunters harvest most of their seals; and

(2)The areas where on-ice seismic operations would be conducted are small compared to the large Beaufort Sea subsistence hunting area associated with the extremely wide distribution of ringed seals. In addition, trained dogs will be used to locate ringed seal lairs before the onset of seismic activities. Subsistence advisors will be used as marine mammal observers during performance of the seismic program. During the seal pupping season, planned seismic line segments will be surveyed via the research biologists teamed with lair sniffing dogs; these teams will be accompanied by Inupiat subsistence hunters experienced in the area of the project. For the two proposed Veritas on-ice seismic projects, most of the anticipated program areas are within 3 - 4 miles (4.8 - 6.4 km) of the coast on the proposed surveys. The proposed on-ice seismic surveys are not thought to hinder subsistence harvest greatly during the timing of the programs. For the proposed Smith Bay project, Nuiqsut and Barrow are the closest communities to the area of the proposed activity, and Veritas has held the following Plan of Cooperation meetings:

(1)Veritas presented the proposed on-ice program in Wainwright on November 1, 2007, in Barrow on November 8, 2007, and in Atqasuk on November 9, 2007.

(2)Veritas presented the proposed on-ice program to the Native Village of Barrow

(NVB)and to the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope

(ICAS)in November 2007; and to the Kuukpik Subsistence Oversight Panel

(KSOP)and Subsistence Oversight Panel in Nuiqsut on December 6, 2007.

(3)The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation

(ASRC)and NVB were contracted for the hiring of subsistence representatives for the proposed Veritas on-ice seismic program. For the proposed Pt. Thomson project, Kaktovik is the closest community to the area of the proposed activity, and Veritas has held the following Plan of Cooperation meetings:

(1)Veritas presented the proposed on-ice program in Kaktovik on December 17, 2007.

(2)Veritas representatives met with the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation

(KIC)and the Subsistence Oversight Panel in Nuiqsut on December 6, 2007, regarding the proposed on-ice seismic program.

(3)Veritas has contracted with KIC for the hiring of subsistence representatives for the on-ice seismic program. In any of these affected villages, Veritas stated that there was no negative feedback that expected or requested additional mitigation measures other than Veritas' standard operating procedures and mitigation measures. For the proposed SOI on-ice geophysical program, the following Plan of Cooperation meetings were held:

(1)SOI held Plan of Cooperation meetings on November 1, 2007, with the community of Nuiqsut, and the KSOP for the purpose of presenting the proposed 2008 on-ice marine seismic program.

(2)SOI has hired a local subsistence advisor for Nuiqsut, in addition to the other North Slope communities of Barrow, Kaktovik, Wainwright, Pt. Lay, and Pt. Hope. The roles of these subsistence advisors are to present maps and subsistence questionnaires which ask subsistence related questions to the residents and subsistence hunters of each community. Subsistence advisors are available during the performance of each SOI program/project in order to effectively communicate between the community and SOI where subsistence activities are on-going, or proposed. This enables SOI to conduct activities with prepared mitigation measures that lessen and avoid impacts to subsistence activities. Mitigation and Monitoring The following mitigation and monitoring measures are required for the subject on-ice seismic surveys. All activities will be conducted as far as practicable from any observed ringed seal lair and no energy source will be placed over a seal lair. Trained seal lair sniffing dogs will be employed by Veritas and SOI for areas of sea ice beyond 3 m (9.8 ft) depth contour to locate seal structures under snow (subnivean) before the seismic program begins. The areas for the proposed projects and camp sites must be surveyed for the subnivean seal structures using 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 shall be recorded and marked. Subnivean structures shall be probed by a steel rod to check if each is open (active), or frozen (abandoned). Veritas and SOI must also use trained dogs to survey the snow road and establish a route where no seal structure presents. The surveyed road must be entered into GPS and flagged for vehicle to follow. Any locations of seal structures must be marked and protected by a 150-m (490-ft) exclusion distance from any existing routes and on-ice seismic activities. During active seismic vibrator source operations, the 150-m (490-ft) exclusion zone shall be monitored for entry by any marine mammals. No ice road may be built between the mobile camp and work site. Travel between mobile camp and work site shall also be monitored for marine mammals and be done by vehicles driving through on a snow road. Vehicles must avoid any pressure ridges, ice ridges, and ice deformation areas where seal structures are likely to be present. Reporting NMFS requires that annual reports must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of completing the year's activities. The reports shall include any seal structures, categorized by size and odor to indicate whether the structure is a birth lair, resting lair, resting lair of rutting male seals, or a breathing hole. The reports shall also contain detailed descriptions of any marine mammal, by species, number, age class, and sex if possible, that is sighted in the vicinity of the proposed project areas; description of the animal's observed behaviors and the activities occurring at the time. Endangered Species Act

(ESA)NMFS has determined that no species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA will be affected by issuing the incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to Veritas and SOI for these three proposed on-ice seismic survey projects. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)In 1998, NMFS prepared an *Environmental Assessment on Regulations Governing the Taking of Ringed and Bearded Seals Incidental to On-ice Seismic Activities in the Beaufort Sea* (NMFS' 1998 EA). The information provided in NMFS' 1998 EA led NMFS to conclude that implementation of the preferred alternative identified in the EA would not have a significant impact on the human environment. In considering the adequacy of NMFS' 1998 EA for analysis of potential environmental consequences associated with the 2008 proposed authorizations, NMFS conducted an informal review and analysis of that EA and prepared a supplemental EA

(SEA)to address the following specific issues:

(1)purpose and need;

(2)affected environment to include spotted seals;

(3)environmental consequences to include spotted seals;

(4)cumulative impacts analysis; and

(5)revised mitigation and monitoring measures. NMFS believes that the information in NMFS' 1998 EA remains valid, except as noted or modified in the SEA. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement was not prepared. NMFS issued a Finding of No Significant Impact Statement on February 14, 2008. Determinations For the reasons discussed in this document and in the identified supporting documents, NMFS has determined that the impact of the on-ice marine geophysical and seismic surveys by Veritas and SOI would result, at worst, in 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 specific 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 and would be small relative to the overall population of spotted and bearded 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 two IHAs to Veritas and one IHA to SOI for the potential Level B harassment of small numbers of ringed seals, and potential Level B harassment of small numbers of bearded and spotted seals incidental to conducting on-ice marine geophysical and seismic surveys in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: February 14, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-3257 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Determination under the Textile and Apparel Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR Agreement) February 15, 2008. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Determination to add a product in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 2008. SUMMARY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA)has determined that certain composite fabrics, as specified below, are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries. The product will be added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Dybczak, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202)482-3651. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON-LINE:** http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/CaftaReqTrack.nsf.Reference number: 38.2007.12.26.Fabric.Columbia SportswearCo. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: Authority: Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (CAFTA-DR Act); the Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA)accompanying the CAFTA-DR Act; Presidential Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and 7996 (March 31, 2006). BACKGROUND: The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the CAFTA-DR Agreement have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides that this list may be modified pursuant to Article 3.25(4)-(5), when the President of the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. See Annex 3.25, Note; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Act. The CAFTA-DR Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamations 7987 and 7996, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of the CAFTA-DR Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. On March 21, 2007, CITA published final procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list (72 FR 13256). On December 26, 2007, CITA received a commercial availability request from Columbia Sportswear Company (Columbia) for a composite fabric consisting of a woven face fabric and a knit backing fabric laminated together by means of a chemical adhesive, of the specifications detailed below. On December 28, 2007, in accordance with CITA's procedures , CITA notified interested parties of, and posted on its website, the accepted petition and requested that interested entities provide by January 10, 2008, a response advising of its objection to the commercial availability request or its ability to supply the subject product. CITA also explained that rebuttals to responses were due to CITA by January 16, 2008. On January 7, 2008, Polartec, LLC (Polartec) submitted a response with an offer to supply, advising CITA of its objection to the request and explaining its ability to supply the fabric as specified in the request in commercial quantities in a timely manner. In its response, Polartec explained that it had been contacted by Columbia and that it had engaged in extensive discussions regarding development and production of the fabric. Polartec claimed that the sample fabric it had provided Columbia in November 2007 was a substitutable product and a reasonable alternative to the specified product. Polartec further stated that while there had been some difficulties in sourcing one component of the final fabric, a woven face fabric, that product was currently available, and that any concerns Columbia had with respect to the sample previously provided could be addressed. On January 16, 2008, Columbia submitted its rebuttal to Polartec's response. In its submission, Columbia indicated that it had made significant efforts to produce the fabric with Polartec, and had provided the company ample opportunity to develop the product. Columbia argued that despite its efforts to source the product from Polartec, Polartec was unable to substantiate its claims that it could produce the fabric as specified in a timely manner. Columbia asserted that Polartec's inability to source different components of the final fabric as specified, namely the woven face fabric and the embossing, was the reason that the sample provided by Polartec differed substantially from the specifications Columbia required. Therefore, Columbia argued that Polartec is unable to supply the fabric in question in a timely manner. On January 24, 2008, in accordance with section 203(o)(4) of the CAFTA-DR Act, Article 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement, and section 8(c)(4) of CITA's procedures, because there was insufficient information to make a determination within 30 days, CITA extended the period of making a determination by 14 U.S. business days. On February 6, 2008, in accordance with section 8(c)(4)(i) of CITA's final procedures, CITA held a public meeting with representatives from Columbia, Polartec, and Burlington Worldwide, during which the interested entities presented evidence and arguments to CITA regarding Polartec's stated ability to provide the subject fabric in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Section 203(o)(4)(C)(ii) of the CAFTA-DR Act provides that after receiving a request, a determination will be made as to whether the subject product is available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries. In the instant case, the information on the record clearly indicates that Columbia made significant efforts to source the fabric in the CAFTA-DR region, specifically from Polartec, and that Polartec cannot supply the specified fabric in a timely manner. Therefore, in accordance with section 203(o) of the CAFTA-DR Act, and its procedures, as no interested entity has substantiated its ability to supply the subject product in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA has determined to add the specified fabric to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement. The subject fabric is added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. A revised list has been published on-line. CITA notes that, in accordance with section 203(o)(4) of the CAFTA-DR Act, Article 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement, and section 9 of CITA's procedures, an interested entity may request CITA to remove or restrict the quantity of a product listed in Annex 3.25 six months after the product has been added. If CITA determines that the product is available in commercial quantities, or restricted quantities, in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries, CITA will publish in the Federal Register a notice of its determination of removal or restriction. Accordingly, the product will be removed from the Annex 3.25 list, or its quantity restricted, six months after the publication date of CITA's determination. Specifications: HTS Subheading: 6001.22

(a)Woven Face Fabric: Fiber Content: 100% textured polyester with mechanical stretch Average Yarn Number: Warp: 114-126 metric/72 filament polyester (71-79 denier/72 filament polyester) Filling: 107-118 metric/72 filament polyester (76-84 denier/72 filament polyester) Thread Count: 54-60 warp ends per centimeter x 45-50 filing picks per centimeter(137-152 warp end per inch x (114-126 filling picks per inch) Weave Type: 2x2 twill with mechanical stretch Weight: 100-110 grams per square meter (2.9-3.3 ounces per square yard) Finish: Piece dyed or printed; piece dyed or printed and embossed with engraved rollers

(b)Knit Back Fabric: Knit: 2 thread circular knit fleece (looped pile knit) Average Yarn Number: Face yarn: 114 -127 metric/36 filament (71-79 denier/36 filament) Fleece yarn: 114-127 metric/144 filament (71-79 denier / 144 filament) Machine Gauge: 24 Weight: 133-147 grams/sq. meter (3.9-4.3 oz. sq yd) Finish: Piece dyed or printed; piece dyed or printed and embossed with engraved rollers NOTES: Face fabric treated with a durable water repellent finish that passes the AATCC Test #22; Fabrics joined with a dot matrix adhesive; Fleece fabric has a mechanical anti-pill finish achieved by shearing the technical back and tumbling in the presence of heat. >Width: Minimum cuttable width of composite fabric is 143.5 cm (56.5 inches). R. Matthew Priest, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. 08-784 Filed 2-15-08; 1:42 pm]

Connectionstraces to 11

Traces to 11 documents

U.S. Code