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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-03-05 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice of Availability

24,313 words·~111 min read·/register/2008/03/05/08-930

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

BILLING CODES 3510-DC-M; 4310-93-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-809] Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind Administrative Review in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (stainless steel flanges) from India manufactured by Shree Ganesh Forgings, Ltd. (Shree Ganesh) and Nakshatra Enterprises Pvt., Ltd. (Nakshatra). The period of review
(POR)covers February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. We preliminarily determine that Shree Ganesh sold subject merchandise in the United States at less than normal value
(NV)during the POR. We also preliminarily determine that Nakshatra's U.S. sales were not *bona fide* sales. Therefore, we intend to rescind the administrative review with respect to Nakshatra. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit written argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument
(1)a statement of the issues, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2924 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 9, 1994, the Department published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. *See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India* , 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994) (Order). On February 2, 2007, the Department published the *Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* for this order covering the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 5007 (February 2, 2007). On February 28, 2007, we received requests for an administrative review from Nakshatra and Shree Ganesh. 1 On March 28, 2007, we initiated the administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 14516 (March 28, 2007). 1 We also received requests for an administrative review from Echjay Forgings Pvt., Ltd., and Hilton Metal Forging, Ltd. However, both of these companies subsequently withdrew their requests for review in a timely manner. Therefore, we rescinded the administrative review with respect to these companies. * See Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India * , 72 FR 41292 (July 27, 2007). Nakshatra On March 28, 2007, the Department issued its initial questionnaire to Nakshatra. Nakshatra submitted its section A response on April 26, 2007, and its section B and C responses on May 15, 2007. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire on June 19, 2007, to which Nakshatra responded on July 17, 2007. We issued a second supplemental questionnaire on September 7, 2007, to which Nakshatra responded on October 3, 2007. We issued a third supplemental questionnaire to Nakshatra on October 25, 2007; Nakshatra filed its response on November 19, 2007. We issued a fourth supplemental questionnaire to Nakshatra on December 18, 2007, to which Nakshatra responded on January 7, 2008. On January 11, 2008, we issued a questionnaire to Nakshatra's U.S. customer. We received a response from this company on January 22, 2008. In its response, the company stated that it did not intend to answer the questions we asked in the questionnaire. Shree Ganesh The Department sent its questionnaire to Shree Ganesh on March 28, 2007. Shree Ganesh submitted its response to the section A questionnaire on April 17, 2007. (The Department later sent this submission back to Shree Ganesh for rebracketing. Shree Ganesh submitted the rebracketed version on May 21, 2007.) It submitted its responses to sections B and C on May 1, 2007. The Department issued a supplemental section A, B, and C questionnaire to Shree Ganesh on June 8, 2007. Shree Ganesh submitted its response to that supplemental questionnaire on July 5, 2007. (The Department later returned this submission to Shree Ganesh for rebracketing. Shree Ganesh submitted the revised version on November 13, 2007.) On August 16, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Shree Ganesh, to which Shree Ganesh submitted its response on September 7, 2007. On September 25, 2007, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire to Shree Ganesh, to which it responded on October 9, 2007. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the scope of the order. Date of Sale The preamble to the Department's regulations expresses a strong preference for the Department to choose a single date of sale across the full POR. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule,* 62 FR 27296, 27349 (May 19, 1997). The Department normally uses the date of invoice as the date of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i); *see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp.* v. *United States,* 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (CIT 2001). However, the Department may use a date other than the date of invoice if that date best reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i). For these preliminary results, the Department used the purchase order date as the appropriate date of sale for Shree Ganesh in both the U.S. and home markets because information on the record indicates that no changes occurred with respect to the material terms of sale, such as price or quantity following Shree Ganesh's receipt of the purchase order. *See* Shree Ganesh's May 21, 2007, submission at 16 and its November 13, 2007, submission at 14. Thus, the purchase order date represents the earliest date upon which the material terms of sale are set. We made no date of sale determination with respect to Nakshatra because we have preliminarily determined to rescind the review with respect to Nakshatra. *See Intent to Rescind* (below). Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether Shree Ganesh's sales of subject merchandise to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared export price
(EP)to the NV (as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below). In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), the Department calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to the prices of individual EP transactions. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, the Department considered all products described by the “Scope of the Order” section, above, produced and sold by Shree Ganesh in the home market to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the contemporaneous window period pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(1) based on the following product characteristics in the following order: Grade; type; size; pressure rating; and finish. The Department used a 20 percent difference-in-merchandise (difmer) cost deviation cap as the maximum difference in cost allowable for similar merchandise, which we calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the U.S. and comparison market variable costs of manufacturing divided by the total cost of manufacturing of the U.S. product. *See* 19 CFR 351.411. Variable cost of manufacture consisted of the sum of material costs, direct labor, and variable overhead. Total cost of manufacture consisted of variable cost of manufacture plus fixed overhead. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise in its home market suitable for comparing to U.S. sales, the Department compared these U.S. sales to constructed value (CV), pursuant to sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Tariff Act. Export Price and Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, EP is defined as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, constructed export price
(CEP)is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections
(c)and (d). For Shree Ganesh's sales to the United States, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act because its merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of the record. We based EP on the packed, CIF U.S. port of destination prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions, where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, including domestic inland freight, domestic brokerage and handling, ocean freight, and marine insurance. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market In determining NV, the statute requires the Department to determine the price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP. *See* 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Furthermore, the Department determines the export market to be viable if it is satisfied that the sales of foreign like product in that country were of sufficient quantity to form the basis of NV. *See* 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act; *see also* 19 CFR 351.404(b)(1) and (2). The Department defines a viable market as one of “sufficient quantity” if the aggregate volume of the sales of foreign like product in that market during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR. *See* 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient quantity of sales in Shree Ganesh's home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, the Department compared the volume of Shree Ganesh's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Based on its comparison of shipment volumes, the Department found that Shree Ganesh had a viable home market and, therefore, based NV for Shree Ganesh on home market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. *See* 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. B. Price-to-Price Comparisons The statute requires the Department to determine whether subject merchandise is being, or is likely to be, sold at less than fair value by making a fair comparison between the EP or CEP and NV under section 773 of the Tariff Act. Where the Department found contemporaneous matches of either identical or similar merchandise that passed the 20 percent difmer test, it based the margin on such matches, making adjustments for differences in packing costs between the two markets in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Tariff Act, and where appropriate, for differences in merchandise between the products compared. We made no adjustments to NV for movement expenses because all of Shree Ganesh's home market sales were made on an ex-works basis. *See* Shree Ganesh's May 1, 2007, section B response at 8. The Department also adjusted NV for imputed credit to account for differences in the circumstances of sale
(COS)pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. C. Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, the Department bases NV on CV if it is unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match for the U.S. sale. Section 773(e) of the Tariff Act provides that when the Department bases NV on CV, we calculate CV as the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A, packing, and profit. In accordance with section 772(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, the Department bases SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, the Department uses the weighted-average comparison market selling expenses. Where appropriate, the Department makes COS adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, the Department makes COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. For purposes of these preliminary results, we based NV for some U.S. sales on CV. D. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, the Department determines NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as EP or CEP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the sales to the U.S. market. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained information from Shree Ganesh about the marketing stages involved in its U.S. and comparison market sales, including a description of the company's selling activities in the respective markets. Generally, if the reported LOTs are the same in the U.S. and comparison markets, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports differences in LOTs, the functions and activities should be dissimilar. Shree Ganesh reported two customer categories in its home market (original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs)and traders). *See* Shree Ganesh's November 13, 2007, submission at Exhibit 3 and its October 9, 2007, submission at 4. It reported one customer category in its U.S. market (distributors). *See* Shree Ganesh's November 13, 2007, submission at 14. Shree Ganesh further reported that it performs identical selling functions for all customers in the U.S. and foreign markets. *See* Shree Ganesh's November 13, 2007, submission at 4. These selling functions included exhibitions, sales promotions, advertisements, and technical/customer services. *See* Shree Ganesh's May 21, 2007, submission at 12. Further, Shree Ganesh reported that its selling activities do not vary by customer category, and it performs the same functions for all customers. *See* Shree Ganesh October 9, 2007, submission at 5. After analyzing the data on the record with respect to these selling functions, we find no evidence of differences in the selling functions performed for different customer categories to support a determination that Shree Ganesh makes sales at more than one LOT. We therefore find that a single LOT exists for all of Shree Ganesh's sales to the United States and to its home market, and that no LOT adjustment is warranted. Currency Conversions The Department made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. Intent To Rescind As indicated above, we have preliminarily determined that Nakshatra's sales to the United States during the POR were not *bona fide* sales. We determined, based on the totality of circumstances, that Nakshatra's U.S. sales were not in accordance with commercial reality. *See* the Memorandum to the File, “ *Bona Fide* Nature of the Sale in the Administrative Review of Nakshatra Enterprises, Pvt., Ltd.,” dated February 28, 2008, for a complete explanation of our analysis. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, the Department preliminarily finds the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Shree Ganesh Forgings, Ltd 40.38 The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results. *See* CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d), rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)A statement of the issue;
(2)a brief summary of the argument; and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests parties submitting written comments to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Nakshatra and Shree Ganesh for which Nakshatra and Shree Ganesh, respectively, did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 162.14 percent all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See* the Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:
(1)The cash deposit rate for Shree Ganesh will be the rate established in the final results of the administrative review (except that no deposit will be required if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent);
(2)for manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the original LTFV investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Order* , 59 FR 5994, 5995. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: February 26, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4241 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-803] Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is preliminarily rescinding the administrative reviews on heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles (“HFHTs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). These reviews cover the period of review of February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007 (“POR”). EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2243. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 2, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative eview of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools from the PRC for the POR. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 5007 (February 2, 2007). On February 28, 2007, Council Tool Company, a domestic interested party, requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. (“Truper”), a Mexican importer of HFHTs from the PRC. On March 28, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative reviews on HFHTs from the PRC. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 14516 (March 28, 2007) (“Notice of Initiation”),. On May 4, 2007, Truper submitted a letter stating that it had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On May 10, 2007, we sent an inquiry to United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) requesting notification as to whether it had information indicating that there were shipments of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR by Truper. On April 25, 2007, September 7, 2007, 1 and November 2, 2007, we issued Truper questionnaires, for which we received timely responses. On November 9, 2007, we extended the deadline for the preliminary results. *See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 63557 (November 9, 2007). On January 28, 2007, through January 30, 2007, the Department verified Truper's questionnaire responses. *See Memorandum to the File: Verification of Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping Administrative Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China* , dated February 26, 2008 (“Truper Verication Report”). 1 On September 5, 2007, the Department placed information obtained from CBP on the record of this review suggesting that Truper had entries of PRC HFHTs to the United States during the POR. Scope of the Review The products covered by these orders are HFHTs from the PRC, comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise:
(1)hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds);
(2)bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges;
(3)picks and mattocks; and
(4)axes, adzes and similar hewing tools. HFHTs include heads for drilling hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles; assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging bars and tampers; and steel wood splitting wedges. HFHTs are manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations may include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the insertion of handles for handled products. HFHTs are currently provided for under the following Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, 8201.40.60, and 8205.59.5510. Specifically excluded from these investigations are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in weight and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and under. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. The Department issued nine conclusive scope rulings regarding the merchandise covered by these orders:
(1)On August 16, 1993, the Department found the “Max Multi-Purpose Axe,” imported by the Forrest Tool Company, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order;
(2)on March 8, 2001, the Department found “18-inch” and “24-inch” pry bars, produced without dies, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. and SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be within the scope of the bars/wedges order;
(3)on March 8, 2001, the Department found the “Pulaski” tool, produced without dies by TMC, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order;
(4)on March 8, 2001, the Department found the “skinning axe,” imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order;
(5)on December 9, 2004, the Department found the “MUTT,” imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc., under HTSUS 8205.59.5510, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order;
(6)on May 23, 2005, the Department found 8-inch by 8-inch and 10-inch by 10-inch cast tampers, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. to be outside the scope of the orders;
(7)on September 22, 2005, following remand, the U.S. Court of International Trade affirmed the Department's determination that cast picks are outside the scope of the order;
(8)on October 14, 2005, the Department found the Mean Green Splitting Machine, imported by Avalanche Industries, under HTSUS 8201.40.60, to be within the scope of the bars/wedges order, and
(9)on July 27, 2006, the Department found that the gooseneck claw wrecking bar which has a length of 17 7/8” not including the curvature portion of the bar stock, imported by Central Purchasing, LLC, to be outside the scope of the order for bars and wedges. Preliminary Rescission of Reviews On May 4, 2007, Truper responded to the Department's questionnaire and stated that it made no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Based on information placed on the record September 5, 2007, the Department issued Truper several questionnaires. *See Background* section above. Accordingly, the Department verified Truper's information and confirmed Truper's statements that it neither purchased nor resold HFHTs from PRC to the United States during the POR. *See Truper Verification Report* . Therefore, because there is no information on the record that indicates Truper made sales to the United States of HFHTs from the PRC during the POR, and because Truper is the only company subject to these administrative reviews, we are preliminarily rescinding these reviews for the period of February 1, 2006, to January 31, 2007, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 5 days after the deadline for submitting the case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department requests that interested parties provide an executive summary of each argument contained within the case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the following information:
(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If we receive a request for a hearing, we plan to hold the hearing seven days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of this preliminary rescission, and will publish these results in the **Federal Register** . This notice is in accordance with section 751 and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: February 28, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4248 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-847] Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Second Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6412. SUMMARY: On November 1, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate, and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, as well as a lack of response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review. As a result of the sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the Final Results of Review section of this notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 72 FR 61861 (November 1, 2007) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). On November 16, 2007, the Department received a notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, FMC Corporation (“FMC”), within the deadline specified in section 315.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. FMC claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a domestic producer of persulfates in the United States and a petitioner in the original investigation. On December 3, 2007, the Department received a substantive response from FMC within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. We did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)( *2* ) of the Department's regulations, the Department determined to conduct an expedited review of the order. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are persulfates, including ammonium, potassium, and sodium persulfates. The chemical formula for these persulfates are, respectively, (NH 4 ) 2 S 2 O 8 , K 2 S 2 O 8 , and Na 2 S 2 O 8 . Potassium persulfates are currently classifiable under subheading 2833.40.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Sodium persulfates are classifiable under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Ammonium and other persulfates are classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 2833.40.50 and 2833.40.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memorandum”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 29, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit in room 1117 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/exporters/producers Weighted- average margin (percent) Sinochem Jiangsu Wuxi Import & Export Corporation
(Wuxi)32.22 Shanghai Ai Jian Import & Export Corporation (Shanghai AJ) 34.41 Guangdong Petroleum Chemical Import and Export Trade (Guangdong Petroleum) 34.97 PRC-wide 119.02 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4243 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-813] Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Notice of Amended Final Results Pursuant to Final Court Decision AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(CAFC)reversed the decision of the Court of International Trade
(CIT)which upheld the Department of Commerce's (the Department) determination in the 2002-2003 administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India to conduct a duty absorption inquiry under section 751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), when the producer/exporter acts as its own importer of record. *See Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. v. United States* , Slip Op. 2007-1011 (Fed. Cir. November 20, 2007) ( *CAFC Decision* ). Pursuant to the CAFC's decision and mandate, on January 24, 2008, the CIT entered final judgment and ordered the Department to annul all duty absorption findings with respect to Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd. (Agro Dutch). As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending the final results of the 2002-2003 administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Katherine Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone
(202)482-4136 or
(202)482-4929, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 20, 2004, the Department published its final results of administrative review, covering the period of review from February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 51630, 51631 (August 20, 2004) ( *Final Results* ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. In the *Final Results* , the Department determined that antidumping duties had been absorbed by the respondents in the review, including Agro Dutch, on those sales for which the respondent was the importer of record, in accordance with section 751(a)(4) of the Act. In October 2004, Agro Dutch contested the Department=s duty absorption finding, along with several other findings made in the *Final Results* , before the CIT. The CIT issued its decision, affirming the Department's finding of duty absorption, in March 2006. *See Agro Dutch Industries., Ltd. v. United States* , Slip Op. 2006-40 (CIT March 28, 2006). Agro Dutch appealed that decision to the CAFC. On November 20, 2007, the CAFC reversed the CIT's decision on the duty absorption issue. The CAFC held that the Department was not empowered to conduct a duty absorption inquiry under section 751(a)(4) of the Act with respect to the sales made by Agro Dutch on which it acted as the importer of record because such sales were not made by Agro Dutch through an importer with whom it is affiliated. The CAFC held that because the term “affiliated” is defined in the statute, the reference in section 751(a)(4) of the Act that subject merchandise be sold “through an importer who is affiliated” with the producer/exporter is unambiguous -- *i.e.* , the statutory definition of “affiliated persons” requires the presence of two or more entities and, therefore, Agro Dutch cannot be “affiliated” with itself. Pursuant to the CAFC's decision and mandate, on January 24, 2008, the CIT entered final judgment and ordered the Department to annul all duty absorption findings and conclusions with respect to Agro Dutch in the *Final Results* . Because there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending the final results of the 2002-2003 administrative review. Amended Final Results of Review We are amending the final results of the 2002-2003 administrative review on the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India to annul our duty absorption finding and conclusion with respect to Agro Dutch. Specifically, we annul our finding that Agro Dutch absorbed antidumping duties during the period of review on those sales for which it was the importer of record. This amendment does not affect the weighted-average margin calculated for Agro Dutch for the period of review. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries for this review. We intend to issue the assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4239 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-449-804] Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 2008 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton at
(202)482-0371; AD/ CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 4, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order of steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Latvia for the period of review covering September 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007 (the POR). *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 50657 (September 4, 2007). On September 28, 2007, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the Rebar Trade Action Coalition and its individual members
(RTAC)1 requested an administrative review of Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs (LM). 1 RTAC is the petitioner in this proceeding. Its individual members include Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company. The Department published the notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Latvia on October 31, 2007. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 61621 (October 31, 2007). On November 30, 2007, LM submitted a letter to the Department in which it certified that it made no sales or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On January 9, 2008, the Department issued a “No Shipment Inquiry” to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to confirm that there were no shipments or entries of rebar from Latvia exported by LM during the POR of the instant administrative review. On January 24, 2008, the Department confirmed, based on a review of CBP data and the results of its CBP inquiry, that there were no entries of subject merchandise exported or shipped by LM during the POR. Based on our findings, we notified parties of our intent to rescind and gave them an opportunity to comment. *See* the Memorandum to The File from David Layton entitled, “Department Intent to Rescind Review,” dated January 24, 2008 ( *Intent to Rescind Memo* ). No party commented on our *Intent to Rescind Memo* . In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Department concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to LM. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part* , 71 FR 65082, 65083 (November 7, 2006). Although the respondent does not have any sales or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, its subject merchandise may have entered the United States during the POR under its CBP antidumping case number by way of intermediaries (without its knowledge). Fifteen days after the publication of this notice, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate in effect on the date of the entry. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the administrative protective order
(APO)in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: February 25, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4249 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service RIN 0648-XB90 Availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment/Habitat Conservation Plan, and Receipt of Applications for Incidental Take Permits from the Broughton Land Company, Columbia County, Washington AGENCIES: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Interior; National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Availability. SUMMARY: The FWS and the NMFS (collectively, the Services) announce the availability for public review of a combined draft Environmental Assessment/Habitat Conservation Plan (EA/HCP) pertaining to an application by the Broughton Land Company
(BLC)for incidental take permits
(ITPs)pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The draft EA/HCP addresses the proposed issuance of ITPs by the Services to the BLC for land management activities in Columbia County, Washington, that are identified in the HCP portion of the draft document. The proposed ITPs would authorize take, incidental to otherwise lawful activities, of the following threatened fish species: the bull trout ( *Salvelinus confluentus* ); Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and the Snake River fall Chinook salmon (both *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha* ); and the middle Columbia River steelhead trout and the Snake River steelhead trout (both *O. mykiss* ). We request comments from the public on the permit applications and the draft EA/HCP, all of which are available for review. The EA/HCP describes the proposed action and the measures that the BLC will implement to minimize and mitigate take of the threatened fish species discussed above. To review the documents, see “Availability of Documents” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. DATES: All comments must be received on or before April 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Please address written comments to the FWS Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, WA 99206. You may also send comments by facsimile to
(509)891-6748 or by e-mail to *fw1broughtonhcp@fws.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please contact Michelle Eames, Project Manager, FWS, at
(509)893-8012,
(509)893-8010, or Dennis Carlson, Project Manager, NMFS, at
(360)753-5828. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability of Documents Copies of the draft documents listed above are available for public inspection and review during normal business hours at the FWS's Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office and at the Dayton Public Library, 111 South 3rd Street, Dayton, WA 99382. You can also request copies by contacting the Services (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above) or on the internet at: *http://www.fws.gov/easternwashington* . The Services are soliciting comments from state and other Federal agencies, Tribes, and the public on these documents. All comments received will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Background Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) and the implementing regulations prohibit the “taking” of endangered or threatened species without a special exemption. The term take is defined under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)) to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. “Harm” is defined by FWS regulation to include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The NMFS definition of harm includes significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, spawning, migrating, rearing, and sheltering (50 CFR 222.102). Section 10 of the ESA and the implementing regulations specify the requirements for the issuance of ITPs to non-Federal parties for the take of endangered and threatened species. Any proposed take must be incidental to otherwise lawful activities, must not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild, and must minimize and mitigate the impact of such take to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, an applicant must prepare an HCP describing the impact that will likely result from such taking, the strategy for minimizing and mitigating the incidental take, the funding available to implement such steps, alternatives to such taking, and the reasons such alternatives are not being implemented. The FWS regulations governing permits for federally endangered and threatened species are found at 50 CFR 13.21. The NMFS regulations governing permits for federally endangered and threatened species are found at 50 CFR 222.307. The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ) requires that Federal agencies conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may significantly affect the human environment. Under NEPA, a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed action must be developed and considered in the agencies' environmental review. Alternatives considered in an HCP environmental analysis may include: variations in the scope of covered activities; variations in the location, amount, and type of conservation; variations in permit duration; or a combination of these elements. The BLC applied to the Services for two ITPs, which would authorize take of several threatened fish species. The FWS would issue an ITP to cover incidental take of the bull trout, and NMFS would issue an ITP to cover incidental take of the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Snake River fall Chinook salmon, middle Columbia River steelhead trout, and the Snake River steelhead trout. The proposed ITPs would authorize the take of those species incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including:
(1)agricultural practices, including dry land and irrigated crop production;
(2)livestock grazing; and
(3)timber harvest (including final and intermediate harvesting, pre-commercial thinning, and salvage harvest activities). Each of the alternatives described and analyzed in the EA portion of the draft HCP/EA cover approximately 38,000 acres in various parcels in Columbia County, Washington. The proposed duration of the ITPs and HCP would be 25 years, although many aspects of the HCP's conservation strategy are intended to benefit aquatic species and their habitat beyond the term of the proposed permits. Should the permits be issued, they would include assurances under the Services' “No Surprises” regulations, which specify that as long as the terms of the HCP and the Permits are implemented, no additional conservation or mitigation measures will be required of the BLC, with respect to the covered species listed above, except as provided for in the HCP or required by a change in law. The draft EA/HCP identifies HCP alternatives considered by the BLC, NEPA alternatives considered in the EA, and explains why those alternatives were not selected. The Services will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and public comments to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of NEPA regulations and section 10(a) of the ESA. Specifically, the applications will be evaluated to determine if they meet the following issuance criteria in section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA: the taking will be incidental; the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the HCP will be provided; the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and any other measures that the Secretaries of Commerce or the Interior may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP will be taken. If it is determined that the requirements are met, NMFS and the FWS will issue permits for the incidental take of the covered species under their respective jurisdictions. The final EA will not be completed and permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. The final EA and permit decisions will fully consider all public comments received during the comment period. Dated: February 28, 2008. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Dated: February 28, 2008. David J. Wesley, Deputy Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. [FR Doc. E8-4262 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODES 4310-55-S, 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG01 Endangered and Threatened Species; Revised Recovery Plan for Distinct Population Segments of Steller Sea Lion AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Availability, responses to comments. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)announces the availability of the Final Revised Recovery Plan, dated March 2008, for the western and eastern distinct population segments
(DPS)of Steller sea lion ( *Eumetopias jubatus* ). NMFS also provides a link to the comprehensive and extensive responses to comments on the May 2007 Draft Revised Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan posted on our website. ADDRESSES: The Final Revised Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan and the Responses to Comments are available on the Internet at the following address: *http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/stellers/recovery.htm* . Copies of the Plan may also be obtained from NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 222 W 7 th St, Anchorage, Alaska 99513; or from the Alaska Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 709 W. 9 th St, Juneau, AK, 99802-1668. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Rotterman at 907-271-5006, email *lisa.rotterman@noaa.gov* , or Kaja Brix at 907 586 7235, e-mail *kaja.brix@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Recovery plans are guidance documents that describe the actions considered necessary for the conservation and recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Development and implementation of a recovery plan helps to ensure that recovery efforts utilize limited resources effectively and efficiently. The ESA requires the development of recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote the recovery of a particular species. The ESA requires that recovery plans incorporate the following:
(1)objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered;
(2)site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan's goals; and
(3)estimates of the time and costs required to implement recovery actions. NMFS' goal is to restore endangered and threatened Steller sea lion ( *Eumetopias jubatus* ) populations to levels at which they are secure, self-sustaining components of their ecosystems and no longer require the protections of the ESA. The Steller sea lion was listed as a threatened species under the ESA on April 5, 1990 (55 FR 12645), due to substantial declines in the western portion of the range. Critical habitat was designated on August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269), based on the locations of terrestrial rookeries and haulouts, the spatial extent of foraging trips, and availability of prey. In 1997, the Steller sea lion population was split into a western DPS and an eastern DPS, based on demographic and genetic dissimilarities (62 FR 30772). Due to a persistent population decline, the western DPS was reclassified as endangered at that time. The increasing eastern DPS remained classified as threatened. Through the 1990s, the western DPS continued to decline. Then, between 2000 and 2004, the western population showed a growth rate of approximately three percent per year the first recorded increase in the population since the 1970s. However, partial surveys in 2006 and 2007 suggest that the overall trend for the western population in Alaska is either stable or may be decreasing slightly. Based on recent counts, the approximate abundance of Steller sea lions in the western DPS in Alaska is currently approximately 45,000 animals. The estimated abundance of sea lions in Russia is approximately 16,000. Based on population-wide surveys in 2002, total abundance of the eastern DPS is currently estimated at between 46,000 and 58,000 animals and has been increasing at a rate of approximately three percent per year since the late 1970s. The first Steller sea lion recovery plan was completed in December 1992 and encompassed the entire range of the species. However, the recovery plan became obsolete after the split into two DPSs in 1997. By that time, nearly all of the recovery actions recommended in the original plan were completed. In 2001, NMFS assembled a new recovery team to update the plan. The team was comprised of members representing the fishing industry, Alaska Natives, fishery and marine mammal scientists, and environmental organizations. The recovery team completed a draft revision in February 2006, then solicited peer review on the draft recovery plan in accordance with NMFS'1994 peer review policy. The team requested reviews from five scientists and managers with expertise in recovery planning, statistical analyses, fisheries, and marine mammals. In response to reviewers' comments, the team clarified the recovery criteria, added delisting criteria for the western DPS, and further refined priorities and recovery actions. In March 2006, the Team submitted the revised plan to NOAA Fisheries with unanimous endorsement from the 17 Team members. In May 2006, NMFS released the Draft Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan for public review and comment (71 FR 29919). On July 20, 2006, NMFS extended the customary 60-day comment period until September 1, 2006 (71 FR 41206), to provide additional time for public review and comments. NMFS received comments from 18 individuals and organizations during the 100-day comment period. We reviewed these comments and incorporated recommendations into the Draft Revised Plan. Due to extensive public interest and the controversial nature of the recovery plan, NMFS released the Draft Revised Plan for another round of public reviews and comments (72 FR 28473, May 21, 2007). This subsequent release provided the public an opportunity to review changes made based on earlier public input and to provide further comments prior to release of a final Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan. NMFS received 8,058 letters of comment on the May 2007 draft of the revised plan. Comments were provided by a wide range of interested parties, including members of the fishing industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), members of academia, the public, and other interested parties. In response to two solicitations, from NMFS and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), peer review comments were received from the Center for Independent Experts and from scientific experts commissioned by the North Pacific Research Board, at the request of the NPFMC. NMFS reviewed the comments and recommendations submitted by peer reviewers and the public on the 2007 version of the draft revised plan and modified the plan as appropriate to produce this Final Revised Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan (Plan). NMFS's response to comments on the May 2007 draft of the plan is available at * http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ protectedresources/stellers/recovery.htm * . Several important issues were highlighted by the comments received and were addressed in the Final Revised Plan. The comments almost exclusively addressed the western DPS. The principal changes made by NMFS in response to comments included expansion of the discussion and a change to the rating of the killer whale threat, and modification of the nutritional stress discussion. Other, more minor changes were also made. The Team had originally labeled the killer whale threat, along with fisheries and environmental variability, as “potentially high.” NMFS reclassified that threat to “medium” in the May 2007 draft plan based on new scientific evidence that had not been available when the Team developed their assessment. However, due to continuing controversy on the role that killer whales play in the recovery of Steller sea lions, the uncertainty associated with some of the data, and the need to take a precautionary approach, NMFS has reinstated the “potentially high” designation for the killer whale threat. Comments were received on the nutritional stress section of the May 2007 Plan. NMFS has more fully explained some of the theories and the data on the role of nutritional stress in the recovery of Steller sea lions in the Final Revised Plan. Overview The Final Revised Plan contains:
(1)a comprehensive review of Steller sea lion ecology,
(2)a review of previous conservation actions,
(3)a threats assessment,
(4)biological and recovery criteria for downlisting and delisting,
(4)actions necessary for the recovery of the species, and
(5)estimates of time and costs for recovery. The threats assessment concludes that the following threats to the western DPS are relatively minor: Alaska Native subsistence harvest, illegal shooting, entanglement in marine debris, disease, and disturbance from vessel traffic and scientific research. Although much has been learned about Steller sea lions and the North Pacific ecosystem, considerable uncertainty remains about the magnitude and likelihood of the following potential threats (relative impacts in parentheses): competition with fisheries (potentially high), environmental variability (potentially high), killer whale predation (potentially high), incidental take by fisheries (low), and toxic substances (medium). In contrast, no threats were identified for the eastern DPS. Although several factors that affect the western DPS also affect the eastern DPS (e.g., environmental variability, killer whale predation, toxic substances, disturbance), these threats do not appear to be limiting recovery of the population at this time. The Final Revised Plan identifies an array of substantive actions that will foster recovery of the western DPS by addressing the broad range of threats. It highlights three actions (detailed below) that are especially important to the recovery program for the western DPS: 1. *Maintain current or equivalent fishery conservation measures:* After a long-term decline, the western DPS appears to be stabilizing. The first slowing of the decline began in the 1990s, which suggests that management measures implemented in the early 1990s may have been effective in reducing anthropogenic effects (e.g., shooting, harassment, and incidental take). The apparent population stability observed from 2000 to 2004 (surveys were conducted in 2006 and 2007 but were incomplete) appeared to be associated with comprehensive fishery management measures implemented since the late 1990s. Therefore, the current or equivalent suite of management actions (or, more specifically, the equivalent protection as afforded by the current management measures) should be maintained until substantive evidence demonstrates that these measures can be altered without inhibiting recovery. 2. *Design and implement an adaptive management program to evaluate fishery conservation measures:* A scientifically rigorous adaptive management program should be developed and implemented. A well-designed adaptive management plan has the potential to assess the relative impact of commercial fisheries on Steller sea lions and distinguish the impacts of fisheries from other threats (including killer whale predation). This program will require a robust experimental design with replication at appropriate temporal and spatial scales. It will be a challenge to construct an adaptive management plan that is statistically sound, meets the requirements of the ESA and can be implemented in a practicable manner. 3. *Continue population monitoring and research on the key threats potentially impeding sea lion recovery:* Estimates of population abundance and trends, spatial distribution, health, and essential habitat characteristics are fundamental to Steller sea lion management and recovery. Current knowledge of the effects of primary threats on these parameters is insufficient to determine their relative impacts on species recovery. Focused research is needed to assess the effects of threats on sea lion population dynamics and identify suitable mitigation measures. Criteria for reclassification of the eastern DPS and western DPS of Steller sea lion are included in the Final Revised Plan (see above). Time and costs for recovery actions for the western DPS are estimated at $93,840,000 for the first 5 fiscal years and $430,425,000 for full recovery. The recovery program for the eastern DPS will cost an estimated $150,000 for the first year and $1,050,000 total, including 10 years of post-delisting monitoring. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: February 28, 2008. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-4235 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF98 Endangered Species; File No. 1614 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Region, Protected Resources Division [Responsible Party: Mary Colligan], One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, has been issued a permit to take dead shortnose sturgeon for purposes of scientific research. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone
(301)713-2289; fax
(301)713-0376; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone
(978)281-9300; fax
(978)281-9394. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandy Belmas or Jennifer Skidmore,
(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 26, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 54643) that a request for a scientific research permit to take dead shortnose sturgeon had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). This research permit authorizes the collection, receipt and transport of 100 dead shortnose sturgeon, or parts thereof, annually. Researchers would also be authorized the receipt and transport of 50 captive bred, dead shortnose sturgeon annually from any U.S. facility authorized to hold captive sturgeon. In the case of an unusual mortality event, takes may be increased from 100 up to 1,000 animals with written approval from the Director, Office of Protected Resources. This permit does not authorize the harassment or take of any protected species (including live shortnose sturgeon). This permit authorizes the conduct of the aforementioned research over a period of five years. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit
(1)was applied for in good faith,
(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and
(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: February 28, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-4260 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF15 Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals During Specified Activities; Marine Geophysical Surveys in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean in 2007 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental take authorization; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA)to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting two marine seismic surveys in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean
(ETP)during 2008. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposed IHA for these activities. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than April 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *PR1.0648-XF15@noaa.gov* . NMFS is not responsible for e-mail comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or visiting the Internet at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289, ext 137. 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 certain 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 with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or
(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. Summary of Request L-DEO submitted to NMFS an application from L-DEO for the taking, by Level B harassment, of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting, with research funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), two marine seismic surveys in the ETP. This project would be conducted with L-DEO's new seismic vessel, the *R/V Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth)* , which would deploy different configurations of airguns and a different bottom-mapping sonar than used previously by L-DEO. The first survey was planned to be approximately 39 days between September and October 2007, and the second one approximately 6 days in between November and December 2007. However, due to scheduling issues with the vessel, the 39-day survey is rescheduled to June and August 2008, and the 6-day survey to April and May 2008. Description of the Specified Activity The April-May 6-day survey would examine two important types of seismic behavior of the Quebrada, Discovery, and Gofar fault systems
(QDG)to understand better the behavior of earthquakes and faults in general. The Discovery and Gofar faults generate more foreshocks in the 1,000 s before large earthquakes than anywhere else in the world. Year-long Ocean Bottom Seismometer
(OBS)deployments during the survey are designed to use those foreshock sequences to answer questions about how large earthquakes nucleate. Despite accommodating the same amount of plate motion (14 cm/year, or 5.5 in/year) and being composed of similar oceanic crust, the Discovery and Quebrada faults differ in their ability to generate large earthquakes: the Discovery fault routinely generates earthquakes >5.5 in magnitude, whereas the Quebrada fault has had only one such event in the last 25 years. Refraction images of the material properties in both fault zones will show if some subtle difference ( *e.g.* , in hydrothermal alteration of the rocks) is responsible for the difference in seismogenic behavior. The June-August 39-day survey would obtain seismic reflection imaging of the internal structure of the magmatic-hydrothermal system at the fast-spreading mid-ocean ridge of the East Pacific Rise (EPR). Much is already known about processes at the EPR, but the proposed survey will provide an understanding of how the magmatic system, which is known at large spatial scales (1-100 km, or 0.62-62 mi), is coupled to volcanic/hydrothermal/biological systems, which are known at comparatively small spatial scales (0.001-1 km, or 0.00062-0.62 mi). The survey would also provide an understanding of the relationships between the temporal variations in subsurface magma systems and highly transient phenomena observed at the seafloor like faulting, volcanism, and hydrothermal venting. The seismic surveys will involve one vessel. The source vessel *Langseth* would deploy a 36-airgun array as an energy source. However, for the EPR study, two identical two-string sources will be firing alternately, so that no more than 18 airguns will be firing at any time, with a maximum discharge volume of 3,300 in 3 . The *Langseth* would also tow the receiving system, which consists of four 6-km (3.73-mi) hydrophone streamers. For the QDG study, no more than 27 airguns would be fired at any time, with a maximum discharge volume of 4,950 in 3 . The *Langseth* would also tow the receiving system, a single 8-km (4.97-mi) streamer, and would also deploy 40 long-term Ocean Bottom Seismometers
(OBSs)that would be recovered 1 year after deployment, and another 8-10 short-term OBSs on each line that will be retrieved after the seismic surveys are completed. The EPR and QDG programs would consist of a maximum of approximately 7,992 km (4,967 mi) and 654 km (406 mi) of surveys, respectively. The proposed QDG seismic survey would last for approximately 6 days, and the proposed EPR seismic survey would last for approximately 39 days. All activities would be conducted in the period between April and August, 2008. The exact dates of the activities will be depend on ship scheduling, weather conditions, repositioning, streamer operations and adjustments, airgun deployment, or the need to repeat some lines if data quality is substandard. The QDG seismic survey would also occur in international waters of the ETP, approximately 2,265 km (1,408 mi) off the coast of Ecuador and approximately 1,300 km (808 mi) west of the Galápagos Islands. The overall area within which the seismic survey would occur is located between 3° and 5° S, and between 103° and 106° W. Water depths in the survey area are more than 3,000 m (9,843 ft) deep. The EPR seismic survey would take place in international waters of the ETP, offshore from Mexico and Central America at the East Pacific Rise. The closest land mass to this survey is Mexico, located approximately 890 km (553 mi) away. The overall area within which the seismic survey will occur is located between 8.3° and 10.2° N, and between 104.1° and 104.5° W. The survey would take place in water more than 2,000 m (6,562 ft) deep. In addition to the operations of the airgun array, a multi-beam bathymetric sonar would be operated from the source vessel continuously throughout the entire cruise, and a lower-energy sub-bottom profiler will also be operated during most of the survey. Vessel Specifications The *Langseth* would tow the airgun array and, at times, up to four 6-km (3.7-mi) streamers containing hydrophones along predetermined lines. The operation speed during seismic acquisition is typically 7.4—9.3 km/h (4—5 kt). When not towing seismic survey gear, the *Langseth* can cruise at 20—24 km/h (11—13 kt). The *Langseth* would also serve as the platform from which vessel-based visual marine mammal observers will watch for marine mammals before and during airgun operations. The characteristics of the *Ewing* that make it suitable for visual monitoring are described under Monitoring, later in this document. Acoustic Source Specifications Airguns The airgun array to be used will consist of 36 airguns, with maximum total discharge volume of approximately 6,600 in 3 . The airguns will comprise a mixture of Bolt 1500LL and Bolt 1900LLX airguns. The array will consist of four identical linear arrays or “strings.” Each string would have ten airguns; the first and last airguns in the strings are spaced 16 m (52.5 ft) apart. Nine airguns would be fired simultaneously, while the tenth is kept in reserve as a spare, to be turned on in case of failure of another airgun. Two of the four strings would be fired during the EPR survey (18 airguns), and three strings would be fired during the QDG survey (27 airguns). The airgun strings would be distributed across an approximate area of 24 × 16 m (78.7 × 52.5 ft) behind the *Langseth* and would be towed approximately 50-100 m (164-328 ft) behind the vessel. The firing pressure of the array is 2,000 psi. During firing, a brief (~0.1 s) pulse of sound is emitted. During the EPR survey, the shots would be emitted at intervals of ~15 s, corresponding to a shot interval of ~37.5 m (123 ft). During the QDG survey, the shots would be emitted at intervals of ~60 s, corresponding to a shot interval of ~150 m (492 ft). The airguns would be towed at a depth of 7 m (23 ft) during both the QDG and the EPR surveys. The depth at which the source is towed affects the maximum near-field output and the shape of its frequency spectrum. In deeper water, the effective source level for sound propagating in near-horizontal directions is higher than in shallow water; however, the nominal source levels of the array at various tow depths are nearly identical. Because the actual source is a distributed sound source (up to 27 airguns in these surveys) rather than a single point source, the highest sound levels measurable at any location in the water would be less than the nominal source level. In addition, the effective source level for sound propagating in near-horizontal directions would be substantially lower than the nominal source level applicable to downward propagation because of the directional nature of the sound from the airgun array. The specifications of each source planned for use are described in Table 1. Table 1.—L-DEO Airgun Configuration and Specification of Each Source Planned for Use in the Proposed Projects 18-Airgun array (2 strings) 27-Airgun array (3 strings) Energy source 18, 2,000 psi Bolt airguns of 40-360 in 3 27, 2,000 psi Bolt airguns of 40-360 in 3 . Source output (downward) 0-pk: 252 dB re 1 microPa-m; pk-pk: 259 dB re 1 microPa-m 0-pk: 256 dB re 1 microPa-m; pk-pk: 262 dB re 1 microPa-m. Air discharge volume Approximately 3,300 in 3 Approximately 4,950 in 3 . Towing depth of energy source 7 m (23 ft) 7 m (23 ft). Dominant frequency components 0-188 Hz 0-188 Hz. A detailed discussion of the characteristics of airgun pulses has been provided in L-DEO's application, and in previous **Federal Register** notices (see 69 FR 31792 (June 7, 2004) or 69 FR 34996 (June 23, 2004)). Reviewers are referred to those documents for additional information. Received sound levels have been predicted by L-DEO in relation to distance and direction from the airguns for the 36-airgun array with 18 and 27 airguns firing and for a single 1900LL 40-in 3 airgun, which would be used during power downs. The predicted sound contours are shown as sound exposure levels
(SEL)in decibels
(dB)re 1 microPa 2. -s. SEL is a measure of the received energy in the pulse and represents the sound pressure level
(SPL)that would be measured if the pulse energy were spread evenly across a 1-s period. Because actual seismic pulses are less than 1-s in duration, this means that the SEL value for a given pulse is lower than the SPL calculated for the actual duration of the pulse. The advantage of working with SEL is that the SEL measure accounts for the total received energy in the pulse, and biological effects of pulsed sounds probably depend mainly on pulse energy. SPL for a given pulse depends greatly on pulse duration. A pulse with a given SEL can be long or short depending on the extent to which propagation effects have “stretched” the pulse duration. The SPL will be low if the duration is long and higher if the duration is short, even though the pulse energy (and presumably the biological effects) is the same. Although SEL may be a better measure than SPL when dealing with biological effects of pulsed sound, SPL is the measure that has been most commonly used in studies of marine mammal reactions to airgun sounds and in NMFS practice concerning levels above which “taking” might occur. SPL is often referred to as rms or “root mean square” pressure, averaged over the pulse duration. As noted above, the rms received levels that are used as impact criteria for marine mammals are not directly comparable to pulse energy (SEL). The SPL (i.e., rms sound pressure) for a given pulse is typically 10-15 dB higher than the SEL value for the same pulse as measured at the same location (Greene *et al.* , 1997; McCauley *et al.* , 1998; 2000). For this project, L-DEO assumes that rms pressure levels of received seismic pulses would be 10 dB higher than the SEL values predicted by L-DEO's model. Thus, the L-DEO assumes that 170 dB SEL can be viewed as 180 dB rms. NMFS considers that this assumption is valid. It should be noted that neither the SEL nor the SPL
(rms)measure is directly comparable to the peak or peak-to-peak pressure levels normally used by geophysicists to characterize source levels of airguns. Peak and peak-to-peak pressure levels for airgun pulses are always higher than the rms dB referred to in much of the biological literature (Greene *et al.* , 1997; McCauley *et al.* , 1998; 2000). For example, a measured received level of 160 dB rms in the far field would typically correspond to a peak measurement of 170-172 dB re 1 microPa, and to a peak-to-peak measurement of 176-178 dB, as measured for the same pulse received at the same location (Greene *et al.* , 1997; McCauley *et al.* , 1998; 2000). The precise difference between rms and peak or peak-to-peak values for a given pulse depends on the frequency content and duration of the pulse, among other factors. However, the rms level is always lower than the peak or peak-to-peak level, and higher than the SEL value, for an airgun-type source. Empirical data concerning 190, 180, 170, and 160 dB
(rms)isopleths in deep and shallow water were acquired for various airgun configurations during the acoustic calibration study of the *Ewing's* 20-airgun, 8,600-in 3 array in 2003 (Tolstoy *et al.* , 2004a; 2004b). The results showed that radii around the airguns where the received level was 180 dB re 1 microPa (rms), the onset point for estimating temporary hearing threshold shift
(TTS)in cetaceans (NMFS, 2000), varied with water depth. Similar depth-related variation is likely for 190-dB, the onset point used for estimating TTS in pinnipeds, although these were not measured. The empirical data indicated that, for deep water (>1,000 m, or 3,280 ft), the L-DEO model overestimates the received sound levels at a given distance (Tolstoy *et al.* , 2004a; 2004b). However, to be conservative, the *Ewing* 's modeled distances would be applied to deep-water areas during the proposed study. As very few, if any, mammals are expected to occur below 2,000 m (6,562 ft), this depth was used as the maximum relevant depth. For the proposed programs in the ETP, the modeled distances are used to estimate deep-water mitigation safety zones; no correction factors are necessary because all activities will take place in deep (> 2,000 m, or 6,562 ft) water. The 180 and 190 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)distances define the safety criteria, used for mitigation for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. The predicted distances to which sound levels higher than 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)could be received, based on the model calculation, are shown in Table 2. Table 2.—Predicted Distances to Which Sound Levels Higher Than 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)Could Be Received From the Airgun Array and Single Airgun Planned for Use During the Surveys in the ETP Source and volume Min. water depth
(m)Predicted RMS radii
(m)190 dB 180 dB 160 dB Single Bolt airgun (40 in 3 ) 3000 12 40 385 36-airgun array: 3 strings (4950 in 3 ) 3000 200 650 4400 36-airgun array: 2 strings (3300 in 3 ) 2000 140 450 3800 Bathymetric Sonar and Sub-Bottom Profiler Along with the airgun operations, two additional acoustical data acquisition systems would be operated during parts of the *Langseth* 's cruises. The ocean floor would be mapped with the 12-kHz Kongsberg Simrad EM 120 MBB sonar, and a 2.5-7 kHz sub-bottom profiler would also be operated along with the MBB sonar. These sound sources would be operated from the *Langseth* , at times simultaneously with the airgun array. The Kongsberg Simrad EM 120 operates at 11.25-12.6 kHz and would be mounted in a sonar pod hung below the hull of the *Langseth.* The beamwidth is 1° fore-aft and 150° athwartship. The maximum source level is 242 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m (rms). For deep-water operation, each “ping” consists of nine successive fan-shaped transmissions, each 15 ms in duration and each ensonifying a sector that extends 1° fore-aft. The nine successive transmissions span an overall cross-track angular extent of about 150°, with 16 ms gaps between the pulses for successive sectors. A receiver in the overlap area between two sectors would receive two 15-ms pulses separated by a 16-ms gap. In shallower water, the pulse duration is reduced to 2 ms, and the number of transmit beams is also reduced. The ping interval varies with water depth, from ~5 s at 1,000 m (3,280 ft) to 20 s at 4,000 m (13,123 ft). The sub-bottom profiler is normally operated to provide information about the sedimentary features and the bottom topography that is simultaneously being mapped by the MBB sonar. The energy from the sub-bottom profiler is directed downward by a 3.5-kHz transducer in the hull of the *Langseth* . The output varies with water depth from 50 watts in shallow water to 800 watts in deep water. Pulse interval is 1 second but a common mode of operation is to broadcast five pulses at 1-s intervals followed by a 5-s pause. Description of Marine Mammals in the Activity Area A total of 34 cetacean species and 6 species of pinnipeds are known to or may occur in the ETP. Of the 34 cetacean species, 27 are likely to occur in the proposed survey area. Five of those 27 cetacean species are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
(ESA)as endangered: Sperm whale ( *Physeter macrocephalus* ), humpback whale ( *Megaptera novaeangliae* ), blue whale ( *Balaenoptera musculus* ), fin whale ( *B. physalus* ), and sei whale ( *B. borealis* ). The other 22 species that are likely to occur in the proposed survey areas are: Minke whale ( *B. acutorostrata* ), Bryde's whale ( *B. edeni* ), Pygmy sperm whale ( *Kogia breviceps* ), Dwarf sperm whale ( *K. simus* ), Cuvier's beaked whale ( *Ziphius cavirostris* ), Longman's beaked whale ( *Indopacetus pacificus* ), Pygmy beaked whale ( *Mesoplodon peruvianus* ), Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale ( *M. ginkgodens* ), Blainville's beaked whale ( *M. densirostris* ), Rough-toothed dolphin ( *Steno bredanensis* ), Bottlenose dolphin ( *Tursiops truncatus* ), Pantropical spotted dolphin ( *Stenella attenuata* ), Spinner dolphin ( *S. longirostris* ), Striped dolphin ( *S. coeruleoalba* ), Fraser's dolphin ( *Lagenodelphis hosei* ), Short-beaked common dolphin ( *Delphinus delphis* ), Risso's dolphin ( *Grampus griseus* ), Melon-headed whale ( *Peponocephala electra* ), Pygmy killer whale ( *Feresa attenuata* ), False killer whale ( *Pseudorca crassidens* ), Killer whale (Orcinus orca), and Short-finned pilot whale ( *Globicephala macrorhynchus* ). A detailed description of the biology, population estimates, and distribution and abundance of these species are provided in the L-DEO's IHA application. Additional information regarding the stock assessment of these species are be found in NMFS Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report (Carretta *et al.* , 2007), and can also be accessed via the following URL link: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2006.pdf* . The most extensive regional distribution and abundance data that encompass the entire study area come primarily from multi-year vessel surveys conducted in the wider ETP by the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Information on the distribution of cetaceans inhabiting the ETP has been summarized in several studies (e.g., Polacheck, 1987; Wade and Gerrodette, 1993; Ferguson and Barlow, 2001), and is also described in detail in the L-DEO's IHA application. Seven species, although present in the wider ETP, likely would not be found in the proposed seismic survey areas. These species are: Pacific white-sided dolphins ( *Lagenorhynchus obliquidens* ), Baird's beaked whales ( *Berardius bairdii* ), Long-beaked common dolphins ( *Delphinus capensis* ), Dusky dolphins ( *L. obscurus* ), southern right whale dolphins ( *Lissodelphis peronii* ), Burmeister's porpoises ( *Phocoena spinipinnis* ), and long-finned pilot whales ( *Globicephala melas* ) (Leatherwood *et al.* , 1991; Van Waerebeek *et al.* , 1991; Heyning and Perrin, 1994; Brownell and Clapham, 1999; Ferguson and Barlow, 2001; Olson and Reilly, 2002). Accordingly, those species are not considered any further. Six species of pinnipeds are known to occur in the ETP: The Guadalupe fur seal ( *Arctocephalus townsendi* ), California sea lion ( *Zalophus californianus* ), Galápagos sea lion ( *Z. wollebaeki* ), Galápagos fur seal ( *A. galapagoensis* ), southern sea lion (Otaria flavescens), and South American fur seal ( *A. australis* ). However, pinnipeds likely would not be encountered during the proposed seismic surveys. Therefore, they are not considered further here. Summary of Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on Marine Mammals The effects of sounds from airguns might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, and at least in theory, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). These effects are discussed below, but also in further detail in Appendix B of L-DEO's application. The potential effects of airguns discussed below are presented without consideration of the proposed mitigation measures described below. When these measures are taken into account, it is unlikely that this project would result in temporary, or especially, permanent hearing impairment or any non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Tolerance Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from airguns are often readily detectable in the water at distances of many kilometers. A summary of the characteristics of airgun pulses is provided in Appendix B of L-DEO's application. Studies have also shown that marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers from operating seismic vessels often show no apparent response (tolerance) (Appendix B(e)). That is often true even in cases when the pulsed sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal group. Although various baleen whales, toothed whales, and (less frequently) pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally to airgun pulses under some conditions, at other times mammals of all three types have shown no overt reactions. In general, pinnipeds and small odontocetes seem to be more tolerant of exposure to airgun pulses than are baleen whales. Masking Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are very few specific data of relevance. Some whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses. Their calls can be heard between the seismic pulses ( *e.g.* , Richardson *et al.* , 1986; McDonald *et al.* , 1995; Greene *et al.* , 1999; Nieukirk *et al.* , 2004). Although there has been one report that sperm whales ceased calling when exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship (Bowles *et al.* , 1994), a more recent study reports that sperm whales off northern Norway continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses (Madsen *et al.* , 2002). That has also been shown during recent work in the Gulf of Mexico (Tyack *et al.* , 2003; Smultea *et al.* , 2004). Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be negligible in the case of the smaller odontocete cetaceans, given the intermittent nature of seismic pulses. Dolphins and porpoises commonly are heard calling while airguns are operating ( *e.g.* , Gordon *et al.* , 2004; Smultea *et al.* , 2004; Holst *et al.* , 2005a; 2005b). Also, the sounds important to small odontocetes are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are airgun sounds. Masking effects, in general, are discussed further in LDEO's application Appendix B (d). Disturbance Reactions Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by slightly changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces a marine mammal(s) from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on the animal(s) could be significant. There are many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of noise on marine mammals. NMFS uses exposures to 180 and 190 dB re 1 microPa rms to estimate the number of animals that may be harassed by a particular sound source in a given area (and also uses those SPLs for use in the development of shutdown zones for mitigation). These estimates are based on behavioral observations during studies of several species. However, information is lacking for many species. Detailed studies have been done on humpback, gray, and bowhead whales, and on ringed seals. Less detailed data are available for some other species of baleen whales, sperm whales, and small toothed whales. Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects Temporary or permanent hearing impairment is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very strong sounds, but there has been no specific documentation of this for marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses. NMFS's incidental take authorizations generally protect against exposure to impulsive sounds greater than 180 and 190 dB re 1 microPa (rms), for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively (NMFS, 2000). Those criteria have been used in defining the safety (shut down) radii planned for the proposed seismic surveys. Several aspects of the monitoring and mitigation measures proposed for this project are designed to detect marine mammals occurring near the airguns to avoid exposing them to sound pulses that might, at least in theory, cause hearing impairment (see Mitigation and Monitoring section below). In addition, many cetaceans are likely to show some avoidance of the area with high received levels of airgun sound. In those cases, the avoidance responses of the animals themselves will reduce or (most likely) avoid any possibility of hearing impairment. Non-auditory physical effects may also occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in mammals close to a strong sound source include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types of organ or tissue damage. It is possible that some marine mammal species ( *e.g.* , beaked whales) may be especially susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to strong pulsed sounds. However, there is no definitive evidence that any of these effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large arrays of airguns. It is unlikely that any effects of these types would occur during the proposed project given the brief duration of exposure of any given mammal, and the planned monitoring and mitigation measures (see below). Strandings and Mortality Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosive can be killed or severely injured, and the auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten *et al.* , 1993; Ketten, 1995). Airgun pulses are less energetic and have slower rise times, and there is no proof that they can cause serious injury, death, or stranding even in the case of large airgun arrays. However, the association of mass strandings of beaked whales with naval exercises involving mid-frequency sonar and, in one case, an L-DEO seismic survey, has raised the possibility that beaked whales exposed to strong pulsed sounds may be especially susceptible to injury and/or behavioral reactions that can lead to stranding. Seismic pulses and mid-frequency sonar pulses are quite different. Sounds produced by airgun arrays are broadband with most of the energy below 1 kHz. Typical military mid-frequency sonars operate at frequencies of 2-10 kHz, generally with a relatively narrow bandwidth at any one time. Thus, it is not appropriate to assume that there is a direct connection between the effects of military sonar and seismic surveys on marine mammals. However, evidence that sonar pulses can, in special circumstances, lead to physical damage and mortality (NOAA and USN, 2001; Jepson *et al.* , 2003; Fernandez *et al.* , 2005a), even if only indirectly, suggests that caution is warranted when dealing with exposure of marine mammals to any high-intensity pulsed sound. In September, 2002, there was a stranding of two Cuvier's beaked whales in the Gulf of California, Mexico, when the L-DEO vessel *Maurice Ewing* was operating a 20 airgun, 8,490 in 3 airgun array in the general area. The link between the stranding and the seismic surveys was inconclusive and not based on any physical evidence (Hogarth, 2002; Yoder, 2002). Nonetheless, that together with the incidents involving beaked whale strandings near naval exercises suggests a need for caution in conducting seismic surveys in areas occupied by beaked whales. No injuries of beaked whales are anticipated during the proposed study, due to the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures. Possible Effects of Multibeam Bathymetric
(MBB)Sonar Signals The Kongsberg Simrad EM 120 12-kHz sonar will be operated from the source vessel at some times during the planned study. As discussed above, sounds from the MBB sonar are very short pulses, occurring for 15 ms once every 5-20 s, depending on water depth. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by this MBB sonar is at frequencies centered at 12 kHz. The beam is narrow (1°) in fore-aft extent and wide (150°) in the cross-track extent. Each ping consists of nine successive fan-shaped transmissions (segments) at different cross-track angles. Any given mammal at depth near the trackline would be in the main beam for only one or two of the nine segments. Also, marine mammals that encounter the Kongsberg Simrad EM 120 are unlikely to be subjected to repeated pulses because of the narrow fore-aft width of the beam and will receive only limited amounts of pulse energy because of the short pulses. Animals close to the ship (where the beam is narrowest) are especially unlikely to be ensonified for more than one 15 ms pulse (or two pulses if in the overlap area). Similarly, Kremser *et al.*
(2005)noted that the probability of a cetacean swimming through the area of exposure when an MBB sonar emits a pulse is small. The animal would have to pass the transducer at close range and be swimming at speeds similar to the vessel in order to be subjected to sound levels that could cause TTS. Navy sonars that have been linked to avoidance reactions and stranding of cetaceans
(1)generally have a longer pulse duration than the Kongsberg Simrad EM 120, and
(2)are often directed close to horizontally vs. downward for the Kongsberg Simrad EM 120. The area of possible influence of the EM 120 is much smaller-a narrow band below the source vessel. The duration of exposure for a given marine mammal can be much longer for a Navy sonar. Possible effects of sonar on marine mammals are outlined below. Possible Effects of Sub-Bottom Profiler Signals A sub-bottom profiler would be operated from the source vessel during the planned study. As discussed before, sounds from the sub-bottom profiler are very short pulses, occurring for 1, 2, or 4 ms once every second. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by this sub-bottom profiler is at mid frequencies, centered at 3.5 kHz. The beam width is approximately 30° and is directed downward. Sound levels have not been measured directly for the sub-bottom profiler used by the *Langseth,* but Burgess and Lawson
(2000)measured sounds propagating more or less horizontally from a similar unit with similar source output (205 dB re 1 microPa at 1° m). The 160 and 180 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)radii, in the horizontal direction, were estimated to be, respectively, near 20 m (65.6 ft) and 8 m (26.2 ft) from the source, as measured in 13 m (42.7 ft) water depth. The corresponding distances for an animal in the beam below the transducer would be greater, on the order of 180 m (591 ft) and 18 m (59 ft), respectively, assuming spherical spreading. The sub-bottom profiler on the *Langseth* has a stated maximum source level of 204 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m. Thus, the received level would be expected to decrease to 160 and 180 dB about 160 m (525 ft) and 16 m (53 ft) below the transducer, respectively, again assuming spherical spreading. Corresponding distances in the horizontal plane would be lower, given the directionality of this source (30° beam width) and the measurements of Burgess and Lawson (2000). Numbers of Marine Mammals Estimated to be Taken All anticipated takes would be takes by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. The proposed mitigation measures will prevent the possibility of injurious takes. The estimates of take are based on consideration of the number of marine mammals that might be disturbed by approximately 654 km (406 mi) of seismic surveys at the QDG study site and approximately 7,992 km (4,967 mi) of seismic surveys at the EPR study site in the ETP. The anticipated radii of influence of the MBB sonar are less than those for the airgun array. It is assumed that, during simultaneous operations of the airgun array and sonar, any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the sonar would already be affected by the airguns. However, whether or not the airguns are operating simultaneously with the sonar, marine mammals are not expected to be “taken” by the sonar given its characteristics ( *e.g.* , narrow downward-directed beam) and other considerations described above. Therefore, no additional allowance is included for animals that might be affected by sound sources other than airguns. There is some uncertainty about how representative the data are for the QDG survey because of the time of year and the validity of the assumptions used below to estimate the potential take by harassment. The data derived from marine mammals surveys that were conducted from the time of year that is different from the proposed QDG seismic surveys. However, the approach used here is based on the best available data. To provide some allowance for those uncertainties, “best estimates” and “maximum estimates” of the numbers potentially affected have been derived based on the average and maximum estimates of densities reported by Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)for the survey blocks encompassing each project study area as presented in Tables 3 and 4 of L-DEO's application. Basis for Take Estimates As discussed above, several extensive marine mammal surveys have been conducted in the ETP over numerous years. The most comprehensive data available for the regions encompassing the proposed survey areas are the Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)data collected from late July to early December 1986-1996. Because the proposed QDG survey is planned for April-May 2008, data collected by Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)in July-December may not be as representative for the QDG survey. Again, however, it is the best available information. For some species, the densities derived from past surveys may not be representative of the densities that would be encountered during the actual proposed seismic studies. For example, the density of cetaceans sighted during L-DEO's 2003 Hess Deep survey was considerably lower (only one sighting) than the densities anticipated to occur there based on the Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)data. The Hess Deep survey occurred in mid-July, and was apparently not well represented by the Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)data collected during the fall, beginning just after the Hess Deep survey. Despite the above caveats, the Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)data still represent the best available data for estimating numbers of animals potentially exposed to the proposed seismic sounds. Average and maximum densities for marine mammals from Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)were calculated for each of the project areas based on encompassing and adjacent survey blocks. Maximum densities were either the highest estimated density in any of the blocks or, if that number was zero, the average group size for that species. The densities reported in Ferguson and Barlow
(2001)were corrected for both detectability [f(0)] and availability [g(0)] biases, and therefore, are relatively unbiased. Estimated Number of Takes by Harassment The number of individuals that may be exposed to airgun sounds with received levels higher than 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)on one or more occasions can be estimated by considering the total marine area that would be within the 160-dB radius around the operating airgun array on at least one occasion. In the QDG survey, the proposed seismic lines do not run parallel to each other in close proximity, and only one transect line might be surveyed a second time, which minimizes the number of times an individual mammal may be exposed during the survey. In the EPR survey, the seismic lines are parallel and in close proximity, and the entire grid may be surveyed more than twice, which may result in individuals being exposed on two or more occasions. It is not known how much time will pass between the first and the second transit along each line, so it is also possible that different marine mammals could occur in the area during the second pass. Thus, the best estimates in this section are based on a single pass of all survey lines (including turns), and maximum estimates are based on maximum densities, *i.e.* , the highest single-block density among all of the blocks used in the calculations. Tables 3 and 4 show the best and maximum estimates of the number of marine mammals that could potentially be affected during the EPR and QDG seismic surveys, respectively. The number of individuals potentially exposed to 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)or higher in each area was calculated by multiplying the expected species density, either “mean” ( *i.e.* , best estimate) or “maximum” (maximum estimate) times by the anticipated minimum area to be ensonified to that level during airgun operations. Table 3.—Estimates of the Numbers of Different Individual Marine Mammals That Might Be Exposed to Sound Levels > 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)During L-DEO's Proposed EPR Seismic Program in the ETP. The Proposed Sound Source Is an 18-Airgun Array With a Total Volume of 3,300 in 3 [“NA” indicates that no percentage of population data were available due to the lack of population estimate] Number of individuals exposed to SPL > 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)Species Best estimate Percent of regional population based on best estimate Maximum estimate Humpback whale 0 0.00 2 Minke whale 0 NA 1 Bryde's whale 3 0.02 7 Sei whale 0 NA 2 Fin whale 0 0.00 2 Blue whale 0 0.03 1 Sperm whale 2 0.01 4 Pygmy sperm whale 0 NA 1 Dwarf sperm whale 66 0.59 87 Cuvier's beaked whale 16 0.08 30 Longman's beaked whale 0 0.00 4 Pygmy beaked whale 0 NA 4 Blainville's beaked whale 0 NA 4 *Mesoplodon* sp 8 0.03 Rough-toothed dolphin 27 0.02 109 Bottlenose dolphin 18 0.01 38 Spotted dolphin 697 0.03 1327 Spinner dolphin 342 0.02 695 Striped dolphin 303 0.02 792 Fraser's dolphin 5 0.00 47 Short-beaked common dolphin 7 0.00 835 Risso's dolphin 18 0.01 53 Melon-headed whale 5 0.01 30 Pygmy killer whale 9 0.02 46 False killer whale 3 0.01 8 Killer whale 1 0.01 3 Short-finned pilot whale 20 0.01 41 Table 4.—Estimates of the Numbers of Different Individual Marine Mammals That Might Be Exposed to Sound Levels > 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)During L-DEO's Proposed QDG Seismic Program in the ETP. The Proposed Sound Source is a 27-Airgun Array With a Total Volume of 4,950 in 3 [“NA” indicates that no percentage of population data were available due to the lack of population estimate] Number of individuals exposed to SPL > 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)Species Best estimate Percent of regional population based on best estimate Maximum estimate Humpback whale 0 0.00 1 Minke whale 0 NA 1 Bryde's whale 6 0.05 24 Sei whale 0 NA 2 Fin whale 0 0.00 2 Blue whale 1 0.04 3 Sperm whale 4 0.01 13 Pygmy sperm whale 0 NA 1 Dwarf sperm whale 0 0.00 2 Cuvier's beaked whale 48 0.24 81 Longman's beaked whale 0 0.00 3 Pygmy beaked whale 0 NA 3 Blainville's beaked whale 0 NA 3 *Mesoplodon* sp 7 0.03 Rough-toothed dolphin 24 0.02 166 Bottlenose dolphin 17 0.01 48 Spotted dolphin 468 0.02 1236 Spinner dolphin 226 0.01 431 Striped dolphin 482 0.03 599 Fraser's dolphin 43 0.01 151 Short-beaked common dolphin 30 0.00 2089 Risso's dolphin 16 0.01 68 Melon-headed whale 7 0.01 38 Pygmy killer whale 3 0.01 16 False killer whale 11 0.03 47 Killer whale 1 0.01 2 Short-finned pilot whale 35 0.02 105 The area expected to be ensonified was determined by entering the planned survey lines into a MapInfo Geographic Information System (GIS), using the GIS to identify the relevant areas by “drawing” the applicable 160-dB buffer around each seismic line and then calculating the total area within the buffers. Areas where overlap occurred (because of intersecting lines) were included only once to determine the minimum area expected to be ensonified to higher than 160 dB re 1 microPa at least once. Applying the approach described above, 2,492 km 2 (923 mi 2 ) would be within the 160-dB isopleth on one or more occasions during the EPR survey, and 2,911 km 2 (1,224 mi 2 ) would be ensonified on one or more occasions during the QDG survey. This approach does not allow for turnover in the marine mammal populations in the study areas during the course of the studies. That might underestimate actual numbers of individuals exposed, although the conservative distances used to calculate the area may offset this. In addition, the approach assumes that no cetaceans would move away or toward the trackline as the *Langseth* approaches in response to increasing sound levels prior to the time the levels reach 160 dB. Another way of interpreting the estimates that follow is that they represent the number of individuals that are expected (in the absence of a seismic program) to occur in the waters that will be exposed to 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)or higher. The “best estimate” of the number of individual marine mammals that might be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels of 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)or higher during the EPR survey includes 2 endangered whales (both sperm whales), 24 beaked whales, and 3 Bryde's whales. Pantropical spotted, spinner, and striped dolphins are estimated to be the most common species exposed; the best estimates for those species are 697, 342, and 303, respectively. Estimates for other species are lower (Table 3). The “best estimate” of the number of individual marine mammals that might be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels of 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)or higher during the QDG survey includes 5 endangered whales (4 sperm whales and 1 blue whale), 55 beaked whales, and 6 Bryde's whales. Striped, spotted, and spinner dolphins are estimated to be the most common species exposed; the best estimates for those species are 482, 468, and 226, respectively. Estimates for other species are lower (Table 4). The “best estimate” of the total number of individual marine mammals that might be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels of 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)or higher for both surveys, along with the percentage of regional population, is listed in Table 5. It includes two ESA-listed species (6 sperm whales and 1 blue whale), 79 beaked whales, and 9 Bryde's whales. Striped, spotted, and spinner dolphins are estimated to be the most common species exposed; the best estimates for those species are 785, 1,165, and 568, respectively. Estimates for other species are lower (Table 5). Table 5.—Estimates of the Numbers of Different Individual Marine Mammals That Might Be Exposed to Sound Levels > 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)During L-DEO's Two Proposed Seismic Program in the ETP [“NA” indicates that no percentage of population data were available due to the lack of population estimate] Total number of individuals exposed to SPL > 160 dB re 1 microPa
(rms)Species Best estimate Percent of regional population based on best estimate Humpback whale 0 0.00 Minke whale 0 NA Bryde's whale 9 0.07 Sei whale 0 NA Fin whale 0 0.00 Blue whale 1 0.04 Sperm whale 6 0.02 Pygmy sperm whale 0 NA Dwarf sperm whale 66 0.59 Cuvier's beaked whale 64 0.32 Longman's beaked whale 0 0.00 Pygmy beaked whale 0 NA Blainville's beaked whale 0 NA *Mesoplodon* sp 15 0.06 Rough-toothed dolphin 51 0.04 Bottlenose dolphin 35 0.02 Spotted dolphin 1,165 0.05 Spinner dolphin 568 0.03 Striped dolphin 785 0.05 Fraser's dolphin 48 0.01 Short-beaked common dolphin 37 0.00 Risso's dolphin 34 0.02 Melon-headed whale 12 0.02 Pygmy killer whale 12 0.03 False killer whale 14 0.04 Killer whale 2 0.02 Short-finned pilot whale 55 0.03 Potential Impacts to Subsistence Harvest of Marine Mammals The proposed activities will not have any impact on the availability of the species or stocks for subsistence use described in section 101(a)(5)(D)(i)(II). Potential Impacts on Habitat and Prey The proposed seismic survey would not result in any permanent or significant impact on habitats used by marine mammals, or to the food sources they use. The main impact issue associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as discussed above. The following sections briefly review effects of airguns on fish and invertebrates, and more details are included in Appendices C and D of the L-DEO's IHA application, respectively. Effects on Fish There are three types of potential effects of exposure to seismic surveys:
(1)Pathological,
(2)physiological, and
(3)behavioral. Pathological effects involve lethal and temporary or permanent sub-lethal injury. Physiological effects involve temporary and permanent primary and secondary stress responses, such as changes in levels of enzymes and proteins. Behavioral effects refer to temporary and (if they occur) permanent changes in exhibited behavior (e.g., startle and avoidance behavior). The three categories are interrelated in complex ways. For example, it is possible that certain physiological and behavioral changes could potentially lead to an ultimate pathological effect on individuals (i.e., mortality). The potential for pathological damage to hearing structures in fish depends on the energy level of the received sound and the physiology and hearing capability of the species in question. For a given sound to result in hearing loss, the sound must exceed, by some specific amount, the hearing threshold of the fish for that sound (Popper, 2005). The consequences of temporary or permanent hearing loss in individual fish on a fish population is unknown; however, it likely depends on the number of individuals affected and whether critical behaviors involving sound (e.g. predator avoidance, prey capture, orientation and navigation, reproduction, etc.) are adversely affected. McCauley *et al.*
(2003)found that exposure to airgun sound caused observable anatomical damage to the auditory maculae of “pink snapper” ( *Pagrus auratus* ). This damage in the ears had not been repaired in fish sacrificed and examined almost two months after exposure. On the other hand, Popper *et al.*
(2005)found that received sound exposure levels of 177 dB re 1 microPa 2 -s caused no hearing loss in broad whitefish ( *Coreogonus nasus* ) . During both studies, the repetitive exposure to sound was greater than would have occurred during a typical seismic survey. However, the substantial low-frequency energy produced by the airgun arrays (less than 400 Hz in the study by McCauley *et al.*
(2003)and less than 200 Hz in Popper *et al.* (2005)) likely did not propagate to the fish because the water in the study areas was very shallow (approximately 9 m (29.5 ft) in the former case and less than 2 m (6.6 ft) in the latter). Water depth sets a lower limit on the lowest sound frequency that will propagate at about one-quarter wavelength (Urick, 1983; Rogers and Cox, 1988). Except for these two studies, at least with airgun-generated sound treatments, most contributions rely on rather subjective assays such as fish “alarm” or “startle response” or changes in catch rates by fishers. These observations are important in that they attempt to use the levels of exposures that are likely to be encountered by most free-ranging fish in actual survey areas. However, the associated sound stimuli are often poorly described, and the biological assays are varied (Hastings and Popper, 2005). According to Buchanan *et al.* (2004), for the types of seismic airguns and arrays involved with the proposed program, the pathological (mortality) zone for fish would be expected to be within a few meters of the seismic source. Numerous other studies provide examples of no fish mortality upon exposure to seismic sources (Falk and Lawrence, 1973; Holliday *et al.* , 1987; La Bella *et al.* , 1996; Santulli *et al.* , 1999; McCauley *et al.* , 2000a; 2000b; 2003; Bjarti, 2002; Hassel *et al.* , 2003; Popper *et al.* , 2005). Some studies have reported, some equivocally, that mortality of fish, fish eggs, or larvae can occur close to seismic sources (Kostyuchenko, 1973; Dalen and Knutsen, 1986; Booman *et al.* , 1996; Dalen *et al.* , 1996). Some of the reports claimed seismic effects from treatments quite different from actual seismic survey sounds or even reasonable surrogates. Saetre and Ona
(1996)applied a “worst-case scenario” mathematical model to investigate the effects of seismic energy on fish eggs and larvae. They concluded that mortality rates caused by exposure to seismic surveys are so low, as compared to natural mortality rates, that the impact of seismic surveying on recruitment to a fish stock must be regarded as insignificant. Physiological effects refer to cellular and/or biochemical responses of fish to acoustic stress. Such stress potentially could affect fish populations by increasing mortality or reducing reproductive success. Primary and secondary stress responses of fish after exposure to seismic survey sound appear to be temporary in all studies done to date (Sverdrup *et al.* , 1994; McCauley *et al.* , 2000a; 2000b). The periods necessary for the biochemical changes to return to normal are variable, and depend on numerous aspects of the biology of the species and of the sound stimulus. Behavioral effects include changes in the distribution, migration, mating, and catchability of fish populations. Studies investigating the possible effects of sound (including seismic survey sound) on fish behavior have been conducted on both uncaged and caged individuals (Chapman and Hawkins, 1969; Pearson *et al.* , 1992; Santulli *et al.* , 1999, Wardle *et al.* , 2001, Hassel *et al.* , 2003). Typically, in these studies fish exhibited a sharp “startle” response at the onset of a sound followed by habituation and a return to normal behavior after the sound ceased. Effects on Invertebrates The existing body of information on the impacts of seismic survey sound on marine invertebrates is very limited. However, there is some unpublished and very limited evidence of the potential for adverse effects on invertebrates, thereby justifying further discussion and analysis of this issue. The three types of potential effects of exposure to seismic surveys on marine invertebrates are pathological, physiological, and behavioral. Based on the physical structure of their sensory organs, marine invertebrates appear to be specialized to respond to particle displacement components of an impinging sound field and not to the pressure component (Popper *et al.* , 2001). For the type of airgun array planned for the proposed program, the pathological (mortality) zone for crustaceans and cephalopods is expected to be within a few meters of the seismic source. This premise is based on the peak pressure and rise/decay time characteristics of seismic airgun arrays currently in use around the world. Some studies have suggested that seismic survey sound has a limited pathological impact on early developmental stages of crustaceans (Pearson *et al.* , 1994; Christian *et al.* , 2003; DFO, 2004). However, the impacts appear to be either temporary or insignificant compared to what occurs under natural conditions. Controlled field experiments on adult crustaceans (Christian *et al.* , 2003; 2004; DFO, 2004) and adult cephalopods (McCauley *et al.* , 2000a; 2000b) exposed to seismic survey sound have not resulted in any significant pathological impacts on the animals. It has been suggested that exposure to commercial seismic survey activities has injured giant squid (Guerra *et al.* , 2004), but there is no evidence to support such claims. Physiological effects refer mainly to biochemical responses by marine invertebrates to acoustic stress. Such stress potentially could affect invertebrate populations by increasing mortality or reducing reproductive success. Any primary and secondary stress responses ( *i.e.* , changes in haemolymph levels of enzymes, proteins, etc.) of crustaceans after exposure to seismic survey sounds appear to be temporary (hours to days) in studies done to date. The periods necessary for these biochemical changes to return to normal are variable and depend on numerous aspects of the biology of the species and of the sound stimulus. There is increasing interest in assessing the possible direct and indirect effects of seismic and other sounds on invertebrate behavior, particularly in relation to the consequences for fisheries. Changes in behavior could potentially affect such aspects as reproductive success, distribution, susceptibility to predation, and prey availability to marine mammals. Studies investigating the possible behavioral effects of exposure to seismic survey sound on crustaceans and cephalopods have been conducted on both uncaged and caged animals. In some cases, invertebrates exhibited startle responses ( *e.g.* , squid in McCauley *et al.* , 2000a; 2000b). In other cases, no behavioral impacts were noted ( *e.g.* , crustaceans in Christian *et al.* , 2003; 2004; DFO, 2004). Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat The effects of the planned activity on marine mammal habitats and food resources are expected to be negligible, as described above. A small minority of the marine mammals that are present near the proposed activity may be temporarily displaced as much as a few kilometers by the planned activity. During the proposed survey, most marine mammals will be dispersed throughout the study area. However, concentrations of marine mammals and/or marine mammal prey species have been reported to occur in and near the proposed study area at the time of year when the seismic programs are planned. The countercurrent thermocline ridge at approximately 10° N (in the EPR study area) has been reported to be an important area to cetacean species, as has the Costa Rica Dome, located several hundreds of kilometer to the east of the study area. Although these areas are thought to be important feeding grounds for some marine mammal species, they are not considered critical feeding areas for any of the species that are found there at that time of year. The proposed activity is not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations, since operations at the various sites will be limited in duration. Proposed Monitoring and Mitigation Measures Monitoring L-DEO proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the present project, in order to implement NMFS's proposed mitigation and monitoring measures.
(1)Proposed Safety Zones Received sound levels have been predicted by L-DEO in relation to distance and direction from the airguns for the 36-airgun array with 18 and 27 airguns firing and for a single 1900LL 40 in 3 airgun, which will be used during power downs. Those corresponding radii were described above under *Acoustic Source Specifications* and are set out in Table 2 above. A detailed description of the modeling effort is provided in Appendix A of the L-DEO's IHA application. If marine mammals are detected within or about to enter the relevant safety zone (180 dB for cetaceans, 190 dB for pinnipeds), the airguns will be powered down (or shut down if necessary) immediately.
(2)Vessel-based Visual Monitoring Vessel-based marine mammal observers
(MMOs)will be on board the seismic source vessel, and they will watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun operations and during start-ups of airguns at night from power-down only. MMOs 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 (a shutdown lasting more than 30 minutes). When feasible, MMOs will also make observations during daytime periods when the seismic systems are not operating for comparison of animal abundance and behavior. Based on MMO observations, airguns will be powered down (see below) or, if necessary, shut down completely, when marine mammals are observed within or about to enter the relevant safety zone (see below). MMOs will be appointed by L-DEO, with NMFS approval. At least one MMO will monitor the safety zone during daytime airgun operations and any nighttime startups. MMOs will work in shifts of 4 hour duration or less. The vessel crew will also be instructed to assist in detecting marine mammals. 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 MMO will scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticule binoculars ( *e.g.* , 7 × 50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25 × 150), and with the naked eye. Night vision devices will be available for use (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular-image intensifier or equivalent), although they are considered of limited effectiveness in detecting marine mammals. Laser rangefinding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist in distance estimation.
(3)Passive Acoustic Monitoring
(PAM)Passive acoustic monitoring
(PAM)will take place to complement the visual monitoring program. PAM will involve towing hydrophones that detect frequencies produced by vocalizing marine mammals. Two or more hydrophones are used to allow some localization of the bearing (direction) of the animal from the vessel. PAM can be effective at detecting some animals before they are detected visually (Smultea and Holst, 2003; Smultea *et al.* , 2004). 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. Therefore, acoustic monitoring can improve detection, identification, localization, and tracking of marine mammals in these circumstances. PAM's value is limited, however, by bottom configuration (water depth) and other environmental factors, and in some cases towing the PAM equipment is not practicable. PAM would be operated or overseen by personnel with acoustic expertise. SEAMAP (Houston, TX) will be used as the primary acoustic monitoring system. This system was also used during previous L-DEO seismic cruises ( *e.g.* , Smultea *et al.* , 2004, 2005; Holst *et al.* , 2005a; 2005b). The PAM system consists of hardware ( *i.e.* , hydrophones) and software. The “wet end” of the SEAMAP system consists of a low-noise, towed hydrophone array that is connected to the vessel by a “hairy” faired cable. The array will be deployed from a winch located on the back deck. A deck cable will connect from the winch to the main computer lab where the acoustic station and signal conditioning and processing system will be located. The lead-in from the hydrophone array is approximately 400 m (1,312 ft) long, and the active part of the hydrophone array is approximately 56 m (184 ft) long. The hydrophone array is typically towed at depths about 30 m (98 ft). Dedicated or clean power supply and grounding should be used to operate both hydrophone system and sound acquisition computer(s). Proper steps should be taken to ensure appropriate shielding from any electronic noise and electro magnetic interferences (Radar pulses, GPS etc.) that could introduce noises into the PAM system. An airgun shoots blanking mechanism should be incorporated into the PAM system so that adequate signal gain for PAM can be achieved to detect vocalizing marine mammals in the vicinity. The acoustical array will be monitored 24 h per day while at the survey area during airgun operations and when the *Langseth* is underway while the airguns are 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 vocalizations produced by cetaceans. MMOs monitoring the acoustical data will be on shift for 1-6 h. 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 vocalization is detected, the acoustic MMO will contact the visual MMO immediately, to alert him/her to the presence of cetaceans (if they have not already been seen). 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, types and nature of sounds heard, and any other notable information. The acoustic detection can also be recorded for further analysis. Mitigation Proposed mitigation measures include
(1)vessel speed or course alteration, provided that doing so will not compromise operational safety requirements,
(2)airgun array power down,
(3)airgun array shut down, and
(4)airgun array ramp up.
(1)Speed or Course Alteration If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety zone 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 zone. NMFS acknowledges that major course and speed adjustments are often impractical when towing long seismic streamers and large source arrays, thus for surveys involving large sources. Therefore the other mitigation measures often will be required.
(2)Power-down Procedures A power down involves reducing the number of airguns operating to a single airgun in order to reduce the size of the safety zone. The continued operation of one airgun is intended to alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel nearby. If a marine mammal is detected within, or is likely to enter, the safety zone of the array in use, and if vessel course and/or speed changes are impractical or will not be effective to prevent the animal from entering the safety zone, then the array will be powered down to ensure that the animal remains outside the smaller safety zone of the single 40-in 3 airgun. If the size of the safety zone for the single airgun will not prevent the animal from entering it, then a shutdown will be required, as described below. Following a power down, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal is outside the safety zone for the full array. The animal will be considered to have cleared the safety zone if it
(1)is visually observed to have left the relevant safety zone; or
(2)has not been seen within the safety zone for 15 min in the case of small odontocetes; or has not been seen within the safety zone for 30 min in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales. Following a power down and subsequent animal departure as above, the airgun array may resume operations following ramp-up procedures described below.
(3)Shut-down Procedures If a marine mammal is within or about to enter the safety zone for the single airgun, all airguns will be shut down immediately. Airgun activity will not resume until the animal has cleared the safety zone, as described above.
(4)Ramp-up Procedures A ramp-up procedure will be followed when an airgun array begins operating after a specified period without operations or at single airgun operation. It is proposed that, for the present cruise, this period would be 4-5 min. This period is based on the largest modeled 180-dB radius for the airgun array to be used in relation to the planned speed of the *Langseth* while shooting. Ramp up will begin with the smallest gun 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-min period. During ramp-up, the MMOs will monitor the safety zone, and if marine mammals are sighted, decisions about course/speed changes, power down and shutdown will be implemented as though the full array were operational. Initiation of ramp-up procedures from shutdown requires that the full safety zone must be visible by the MMOs. This requirement will preclude starts at night or in thick fog. Ramp-up is allowed from a power down under reduced visibility conditions, but only if at least one airgun has operated continuously with a source level of at least 180 dB re microPa
(rms)throughout the survey interruption. It is assumed that the single airgun will alert marine mammals to the approaching seismic vessel, allowing them to move away if they choose. Ramp-up procedures will not be initiated if a marine mammal is observed within the safety zone of the airgun array to be operated. Data Collection and Reporting MMOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate numbers of animals 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 safety zone. 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, and behavioral pace.
(2)Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, 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 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 MMOs 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. MMO 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 as described above.
(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. A final 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 also provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), and the amount and nature of potential take of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. Endangered Species Act Under section 7 of the ESA, the NSF has begun consultation on this proposed seismic survey. NMFS will also consult on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of an IHA. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)In April 2007, LGL Ltd.
(LGL)prepared a draft *Environmental Assessment of Two Marine Geophysical Surveys by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, 2007*
(EA)for L-DEO and NSF. NMFS will review this EA and will either adopt it or prepare its own NEPA document before making a determination on the issuance of the IHA. Preliminary Determination Based on the preceding information, and provided that the proposed mitigation and monitoring are incorporated, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of conducting the marine seismic survey in the ETP may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior of small numbers of certain species of marine mammals. While behavioral and avoidance reactions may be made by these species in response to the resultant noise from the airguns, these behavioral changes are expected to have a negligible impact on the affected species and stocks of marine mammals. While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the area of seismic operations, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be relatively small in light of the population sizes (see Tables 3, 4, and 5). NMFS anticipates the actual take of individuals to be even lower than the numbers depicted in the tables, because those numbers do not reflect either the implementation of the mitigation numbers or the fact that some animals likely will avoid the sound at levels lower than those expected to result in harassment. In addition, no take by death and/or injury is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures described in this document. Proposed Authorization NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to L-DEO for a marine seismic survey project in the ETP in April-August 2008, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: February 28, 2008. Helen Golde, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-4237 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary AGENCY: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent to initiate public scoping. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA)Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
(ONMS)is preparing a draft environmental impact statement to consider the establishment of a research (control) area in Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary (GRNMS). Activities are restricted within research areas in order to facilitate better understanding of resources and environmental processes. This notice announces the beginning of public scoping pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The public scoping process, including public scoping meetings, is intended to solicit information and comments on the range and significance of issues related to the establishment of a research area at Gray's Reef. The results of this scoping process will assist NOAA in formulating alternatives for the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed research area. This notice contains times, dates, and locations for scoping meetings. DATES: Comments will be considered if received by April 21, 2008. Scoping meetings will be held at:
(1)March 18, 2008, Camden Public Library, 6-8 p.m.
(2)March 20, 2008, Armstrong Center, 6-8 p.m.
(3)March 24, 2008, Statesboro Regional Library, 6-8 p.m.
(4)March 25, 2008, Stevens Wetlands Education Center, 6-8 p.m.
(5)March 27, 2008, Best Western Sea Island Inn, 6-8 p.m. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent to Gray's Reef NMS (Research Area), 10 Ocean Science Circle, Savannah, GA 31411; or by facsimile to 912/598-2367; or to *grnms.researcharea@noaa.gov.* Scoping meetings will be held at:
(1)Camden Public Library, 1410 Highway 40 East, Kingsland, Georgia 31548.
(2)Armstrong Center, 13040 Abercorn St., Savannah, Georgia 31419.
(3)Statesboro Regional Library, 124 South Main St., Statesboro, Georgia 30458.
(4)Stevens Wetlands Education Center, 600 Cedar St., Richmond Hill, Georgia 31324.
(5)Best Western Sea Island Inn, 1015 Bay St., Beaufort, South Carolina 29902. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Shortland
(912)598-2381 or *Becky.Shortland@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to designate discrete areas of the marine environment as national marine sanctuaries to protect their special conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, archaeological, scientific, educational, or esthetic qualities. The NMSA is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)through the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). The concept of a research (control) area within Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary has been under discussion for several years. The concept was first raised in 1999 during the early stages of the GRNMS Management Plan review process at public scoping meetings and was raised again during public research workshops. Subsequently, the Gray's Reef Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC), with the approval of the Sanctuary superintendent, formed a research area working group
(RAWG)to further consider the concept. The Advisory Council's recommendation to investigate the concept of a marine research area was adopted by GRNMS as a research and monitoring strategy for the Management Plan which was released in 2006. The RAWG comprised representative constituents of Gray's Reef including: researchers, academics, conservation groups, recreational anglers and divers, educators, commercial fishing, law enforcement and sanctuaries representatives. The working group met initially in May 2004, and then periodically over the course of a year, to discuss the concept in detail. The working group employed a consensus-driven, constituent-based process to address the concept of a marine research area. All participants discussed at length all issues, considerations, priorities and concerns for each step of the process. The following recommendations were developed by the working group and were referred to the SAC. After reviewing and considering the recommendations, the SAC adopted and submitted them to NOAA GRNMS: Recommendation #1 Significant research questions exist at Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary that can only be addressed by establishing a control (research) area. Therefore, the research area concept should be further explored by NOAA through a public review process. Recommendation #2 As many appropriate tools as feasible, especially a GIS (Geographic Information Systems, geographic and spatial analysis software) site evaluation tool and a RAWG should be used to investigate a research area with proper siting criteria. Recommendation #3 Diversity of habitat with emphasis on high relief habitat should be the primary siting criterion. The RAWG should be maintained to support NOAA GRNMS in consideration of these various criteria (e.g., habitat, size, existing research and monitoring sites, bottom fishing data) in developing proposed options for a draft environmental impact statement. Recommendation #4 Minimizing impacts to user communities including fishing, diving, research, and resource management should be a priority under the research area concept. Non-bottom impinging activities should not be viewed as conflicting with the primary objectives of a proposed research area. Based on the recommendations of the Advisory Council, NOAA has concluded that the research area concept should be further explored through a public review process. In the upcoming DEIS, NOAA will likely develop a range of alternatives for the creation of a research area, including a no-action alternative. If this action results in the creation of a research area in the GRNMS, a companion management plan for the research area will serve as a supplement to the 2006 GRNMS Final Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. By this notice, NOAA announces the initiation of scoping for the proposed research area in Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary. Scoping is the initial process intended to solicit information and comments on the range and significance of issues related to the proposed action. The results of this scoping process will assist NOAA in formulating alternatives for a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed research area. NOAA encourages the public and interested parties to submit (via mail, e-mail, or fax) comments and to attend the public scoping meetings in March. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 *et seq.* (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) Dated: February 26, 2008. John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. 08-930 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 18
Traces to 18 documents
6 references not yet in our index
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
  • 50 CFR 17.3
  • 50 CFR 222.102
  • 50 CFR 13.21
  • 50 CFR 222.307
  • 50 CFR 216.103
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Availability
C.F.R.§ 351.401
C.F.R.§ 351.414
C.F.R.§ 351.411
C.F.R.§ 351.404
C.F.R.§ 351.410
C.F.R.§ 351.412
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.309
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
Cite50 CFR 17.3
Cite50 CFR 222.102
Cites 24 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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