Proposed Rules. Proposed rule; extension of comment period

Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce
Action: Proposed rule; extension of comment period
Citation: FR Doc. 08-1046 · RIN 0648-AR78 · Docket No. 071121736-7619-01 · 50 CFR 600

Summary

NMFS extends the public comment period on the proposed rule containing revised definitions for certain regulatory terms, and procedural and technical changes to the regulations addressing scientific research activities, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activities under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NMFS has received a request to extend the comment period for the proposed rule beyond its current 90-day comment period. The extension of the comment period for an additional 15 days is intended to ensure that NMFS provides adequate time for fishery management councils, stakeholders and members of the public to comment on the proposed revisions. The comment deadline is extended from March 20, 2008, to April 4, 2008.

Dates

Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2008.

Supplementary Information

A proposed rule that covers NMFS' proposed revisions to the regulations addressing scientific research activities, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activities under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was published on December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72657), with a comment period ending date of March 20, 2008. After receiving several requests to extend the comment period, NMFS has decided to extend it for an additional 15 days through April 4, 2008. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. , 1801 et seq. Dated: March 13, 2008. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5425 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 53 Tuesday, March 18, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 13, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Foreign Agricultural Service Title: Sugar Imported for Exports as Refined Sugar or as a Sugar-Containing Product, or Used in Production of Certain Polyhydric Alcohols. Omb Control Number: 0551-0015. Summary of Collection: Regulation 7 CFR Part 1530 authorizes the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) to issue import licenses to enter raw cane sugar (exempt from the tariff-rate quota for the raw cane sugar imports and the related requirements) on the condition that an equivalent quantity of refined sugar be: (1) Exported as refined sugar; (2) exported as an ingredient in sugar containing products; or (3) used in production of certain polyhydric alcohols. The purpose of the sugar import-licensing program is to assist U.S. sugar manufacturers, refiners, and processors in making U.S. products price competitive on the world market; and facilitate the use of domestic refining capacity. Need and Use of the Information: FAS will collect information to verify that the world-priced sugar is actually exported and not diverted onto the domestic market, thereby undermining the objectives of politically sensitive U.S. sugar policies. This collection enables USDA to regularly monitor the status of program participants in an effort to ensure that they remain within Program parameters. Without the collection, there would be increased opportunity to purposely divert sugar onto the domestic market. Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit. Number of Respondents: 200. Frequency Of Responses: Reporting; Quarterly; Annually. Total Burden Hours: 717. Foreign Agricultural Service Title: Specialty Sugar Import Certificates. Omb Control Number: 0551-0025. Summary of Collection: The Secretary of Agriculture each year announces the U.S. sugar import quantity that will be subject to the tariff-rate quotas, including specialty sugars for each fiscal year (October 1-September 30). In order to grant licenses, ensure that imported specialty sugar does not disrupt the current domestic support program, and maintain administrative control over the program, an application with certain specific information must be collected from those who wish to participate in the program established by the regulation. Importers are required to supply specific information to the Secretary and the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), in order to be granted a certificate to import specialty sugar. The information is supplied to U.S. Customs officials in order to certify that the sugar being imported is “specialty sugar.” Need and Use of the Information: The collected information will be used to: (1) Determine whether applicants for the program meet the regulation's eligibility criteria; (2) ensure that sugar to be imported is specialty sugar and meets the requirements of the regulation; (3) audit participants' compliance with the regulation; and (4) prevent entry of world-priced program sugar from entering the domestic commercial market instead of domestic specialty sugar market. Without the collection of this information the Certifying Authority would not have any basis on which to make a decision on whether a certificate should be granted, and would not have the ability to monitor sugar imports under this program. Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit. Number of Respondents: 25. Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually. Total Burden Hours: 30. Foreign Agricultural Service Title: Export Assistance Programs. Omb Control Number: 0551-0031. Summary of Collection: The Office of Trade Program (OTP) provides vital services within the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It facilitates trade contacts between U.S. exporters and foreign buyers seeking U.S. food and agricultural products. All of the assistance offered is designed to promote U.S. agricultural exports by helping American exporters make contact with export agents, trading companies, importers and foreign buyers thus creating opportunities to sell their products in overseas markets. The specific programs covered by this request for OMB information collection authority are: U.S. Suppliers List, Buyer Alert, Trade Shows, Foreign Buyers List, Export Directory of U.S. Food Distribution Companies, Madigan Award. The authority for these program falls under 7 U.S. C. Part 1761, 7 U.S.C. Part 5693 and 7 U.S.C. part 1765b. FAS will collect information using a combination of forms and telephone interviews. Need and Use of the Information: FAS will collect information on contact names, mailing addresses, telephones, fax, email, and websites. The main purpose for collecting the information is to foster trade contacts in an effort to facilitate greater export of U.S. agriculture food, forestry, and fishery products. The databases are used to recruit U.S. exporters, importers, and buyers to participate in market development activities sponsored by USDA. These databases must be updated periodically to maintain the integrity and usefulness to the trade community. Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit. Number of Respondents: 31,910. Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually. Total Burden Hours: 3,632. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5393 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 13, 2008 The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Agricultural Marketing Service Title: Tobacco Reports. OMB Control Number: 0581-0004. Summary of Collection: The Tobacco Statistics Act of 1929 (7 U.S.C. 501-508) provides for the collection and publication of statistics of tobacco by USDA with regard to quantity of leaf tobacco in all forms in the United States and Puerto Rico, owned by or in the possession of dealers, manufacturers, growers' cooperative associations, and others with the exception of the original growers of the tobacco. The information furnished under the provisions of this Act shall be used only for statistical purposes for which it is supplied. Need and Use of the Information: The basic purpose of the information collection is to ascertain the total supply of unmanufactured tobacco available to domestic manufacturers and to calculate the amount consumed in manufactured tobacco products. This data is also used for the calculation of production quotas for individual types of tobacco and for price support calculations. Without the information USDA would not be able to disseminate marketing information as directed and authorized in the Act. Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit. Number of Respondents: 57. Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Quarterly. Total Burden Hours: 204. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5397 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 13, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service Title: Prince William Sound User Experience Survey. Omb Control Number: 0596-NEW. Summary of Collection: Prince William Sound (PWS), the geographic heart of the Chugach National Forest (CNF), was severely impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) in 1989. In the aftermath of the spill, a council of federal and state trustees (EVOS Trustee Council) was awarded criminal and civil restitution funds to help with the recovery, and the evaluation of the recovery, of injured natural resources and human services. The Prince William Sound User Experience Survey aims to advance understanding of the status of recovery for the recreation/tourism human service still defined by EVOS trustees as “recovering” and not yet fully “recovered.” It also aims to identify potential impacts to the recovery of other injured goods and services. Need and Use of the Information: The survey will aid in evaluating the potential for conflict among user groups and the possibility of displacement resulting from those interactions. Additionally, it will investigate recreation/tourism user perceptions about lingering oil and evaluate how those perceptions may affect experience. The data will be used by managers to determine use patterns for the PWS, giving decision makers insight into the recovery of injured resources and human services, which were redistributed around the PWS in the aftermath of EVOS. The data will also provide managers with the ability to protect and restore EVOS injured resources and human services during a time of increasing human use in the PWS. Description of Respondents: Individuals or households. Number of Respondents: 500. Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually. Total Burden Hours: 167. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5404 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2008 Estimate of Micronesians AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at dHynek@doc.gov ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Claire Shook-Finucane via U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Room 6H154A, Washington, DC 20233, or (301) 763-6092, or via the Internet at claire.shook-finucane@census.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request clearance from the Office of Management and Budget to survey the residents of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) to collect basic demographic data to meet the needs of The Compact of Free Association. The Compact of Free Association between the United States, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands went into effect in 1986, and with the Republic of Palau in 1994. The Compact, a joint congressional-executive agreement, provides United States funds to these island areas for a range of development programs, the use of United States currency, immigration privileges, federal processing of applications for air services, United States transportation of mail, and other benefits. In exchange, each Pacific nation guarantees the United States exclusive use of its land for military purposes. As stated in the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 an enumeration of Micronesians shall be conducted every five years in Hawaii, Guam, CNMI, and America Samoa for disbursing Compact funds. 1 The U.S. Department of the Interior decided to use Census' American Community Survey (ACS) data to estimate the number of Micronesians living in Hawaii and, due to the small population of Micronesians living in American Samoa, to use Census 2000 data to determine the number of Micronesians living there. The Department of the Interior has requested that the Census Bureau conduct a survey to estimate the number of Micronesians living in Guam and CNMI. Based on the Compact, this Survey of Micronesians will be fielded in 2008 and will need to provide information to meet three data needs: place of birth, residential tenure, and children of Micronesians. Only questions pertaining to these needs will be requested. The questions and data collection procedures will follow the ACS and U.S. Island Area Census, including a content reinterview phase. 1 Public Law 108-188. II. Method of Collection In Guam, approximately 45 sample blocks totaling about 3,300 sample addresses will be listed and enumerated. In CNMI, approximately 30 sample blocks totaling about 2,000 sample addresses will be listed and enumerated. The data will be collected via in-person interviews. The content reinterview will sample approximately 400 respondents via a telephone number provided by the respondents. III. Data OMB Control Number: None. Form Number: None. Type of Review: Regular submission. Affected Public: Individuals or households. Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,770. Estimated Time Per Response: 32 minutes. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,544. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary. Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Section 8(b) and Public Law 108-188, The Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: March 12, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5324 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Annual Wholesale Trade Survey AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at dHynek@doc.gov ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to John Miller, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8K081, Washington, DC 20233-6500, (301) 763-2758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Annual Wholesale Trade Survey (AWTS) covers companies with employment that are primarily engaged in merchant wholesale trade in the United States, including wholesalers that take title of the goods they sell such as jobbers, industrial distributors, exporters, importers, and manufacturers' sales branches and offices. Additionally, the AWTS includes companies that do not take title of the goods they sell such as agents, merchandise or commodity brokers, commission merchants, and electronic business-to-business markets. The Bureau of Economic Analysis uses this information to improve the inventory valuation adjustments applied to estimates of the Gross Domestic Product, and considers these data vital inputs to the National Income and Product accounts and annual input-output tables. The estimates produced from the AWTS are based on a probability sample and are published on the North American Industry Classification System basis. The sample design consists of small, medium, and large businesses requested to report sales on one of six questionnaires (the three classifications that follow are broken into separate questionnaires for company or single establishment reporters). Merchant wholesale establishments, excluding manufacturers' sales branches and offices, are requested to provide sales, e-commerce, inventories, method of inventory valuation, inventories held outside the United States, purchases, and operating expenses. Manufacturers' sales branches and offices are requested to provide sales, e-commerce, inventories, method of inventory valuation, inventories held outside the United States, and operating expenses. The agents, merchandise or commodity brokers, commission merchants, and electronic business-to-business markets are requested to provide commissions, sales on their own account, e-commerce, and operating expenses. The sample, consisting of approximately 8,900 businesses, is drawn from the Business Register, which contains all Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) and listed establishment locations. The sample is updated quarterly to reflect employer “births” and “deaths”; adding new employer businesses identified in the Business and Professional Classification Survey and deleting firms and EINs when it is determined they are no longer active. Data from the AWTS are published at the United States summary level for selected wholesale industries approximately fourteen months after the end of the collection year. II. Method of Collection The information will be collected by mail, Internet, fax, and telephone. III. Data OMB Control Number: 0607-0195. Form Number: SA-42, SA-42A, SA-42(MSBO), SA-42A(MSBO), SA-42(AGBR), SA-42A(AGBR). Type of Review: Regular submission. Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations. Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,887. Estimated Time per Response: 31 minutes. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,592. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory. Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, sections 182, 224, and 225. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: March 12, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5325 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 16-2008] Foreign-Trade Zone 39 - Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, Application for Subzone, Dal-Tile Corporation, (Flooring and Home Furnishing Products Distribution), Sunnyvale and Mesquite, Texas An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board, grantee of FTZ 39, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the flooring and home furnishing products warehouse/distribution facilities of Dal-Tile Corporation (Dal-Tile), at sites in Sunnyvale and Mesquite, Texas. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on March 7, 2008. The proposed subzone is located at two sites in Dallas County, Texas: Site 1 (623,000 sq. ft. on 35 acres) - located at 199 Planters Road, Sunnyvale; and, Site 2 (396,750 sq. ft. on 24 acres) -- located at 510 N. Peachtree, Suite 200, Mesquite. The facilities will be used for quality control, shading, cleaning, repackaging, marking, warehousing and distribution of domestic and foreign-origin flooring and home furnishing products for both the U.S. market and for re-export. None of the activities which Dal-Tile is proposing to perform under zone procedures would constitute manufacturing or processing under the FTZ Board's regulations. The application indicates that FTZ procedures would be used to support Dal-Tile's Texas-based distribution activity in competition with facilities abroad. FTZ procedures would exempt Dal-Tile from customs duty payments on foreign products that are re-exported (less than 5 percent of the facilities' shipments). On its domestic shipments, duty payments would be deferred until the products are entered for consumption. The company may also realize certain logistical benefits related to the use of direct delivery and weekly customs entry procedures. The application indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the facilities' international competitiveness. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 19, 2008;. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to June 2, 2008). A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: U.S. Department of Commerce, Export Assistance Center, 808 Throckmorton St., Fort Worth, TX 76102-6315; and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230-0002. For further information, contact Diane Finver at Diane_Finver@ita.doc.gov or (202) 482-1367. Dated: March 7, 2008. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5459 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Order No. 1548 Approval for Expansion of Authority for Subzone 103A, Imation Enterprise Corp. (Data Storage Products), Wahpeton, North Dakota Area Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: Whereas , Imation Enterprise Corp. (Imation), operator of Subzone 103A, has requested authority to expand the scope of manufacturing activity conducted under zone procedures within Subzone 103A at the Imation facilities in the Wahpeton, North Dakota area (FTZ Docket 27-2007, filed 7/23/2007); Whereas , notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (72 FR 41705, 7/31/2007); Whereas , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest; Now, therefore , the Board hereby orders: The application to expand the scope of manufacturing authority under zone procedures within Subzone 103A, is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of March 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5432 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1549] Approval for Expansion of Manufacturing Authority for Subzone 86D; Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company; (Oil Refinery) Anacortes, WA Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: Whereas , the Port of Tacoma, grantee of FTZ 86, has requested authority on behalf of Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, to expand the scope of manufacturing activity conducted under zone procedures within Subzone 86D at the Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company oil refinery complex in Anacortes, Washington (FTZ Docket 22-2007, filed 07-10-2007); Whereas , notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (72 FR 39051, 7/17/07); and, Whereas , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the application would be in the public interest if approval is subject to the conditions listed below; Now, therefore , the Board hereby approves the expansion of the scope of activity at Subzone 86D for the manufacture of petroleum products at the Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company oil refinery complex located in Anacortes, Washington, as described in the application and the Federal Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.28, and further subject to the following conditions: 1. Foreign status (19 CFR 146.41, 146.42) products consumed as fuel for the refinery shall be subject to the applicable duty rate. 2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) shall be elected on all foreign merchandise admitted to the subzone, except that non-privileged foreign (NPF) status (19 CFR 146.42) may be elected on refinery inputs covered under HTSUS Subheadings #2709.00.10, #2709.00.20, #2710.11.25, #2710.11.45, #2710.19.05, #2710.19.10, #2710.19.45, #2710.91.00, #2710.99.05, #2710.99.10, #2710.99.16, #2710.99.21 and #2710.99.45 which are used in the production of: —petrochemical feedstocks and refinery by-products (examiners report, Appendix “C”); —products for export; —and, products eligible for entry under HTSUS # 9808.00.30 and #9808.00.40 (U.S. Government purchases). Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of March 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5421 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Order No. 1541 Approval of Manufacturing Authority, Within Foreign-Trade Zone 26, Atlanta, Georgia, Perkins Shibaura Engines LLC (Diesel Engines) Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: Whereas , Georgia Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 26, has requested authority under Section 400.28 (a)(2) of the Board's regulations on behalf of Perkins Shibaura Engines LLC, to manufacture diesel engines under FTZ procedures within FTZ 26 Site 6, Griffin, Georgia (FTZ Docket 24-2007, filed 7-19-2007); Whereas , notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (72 FR 40833, 7-25-2007); Whereas , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest; Now, therefore , the Board hereby grants authority for the manufacture of diesel engines within FTZ 26 for Perkins Shibaura Engines LLC, as described in the application and Federal Register notice, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of March 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5441 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1550] Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 185 Culpeper County, VA Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: Whereas , the Culpeper County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 185, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 185 to include a site in Augusta County, Virginia, adjacent to the Front Royal Customs and Border Protection port of entry (FTZ Docket 23-2007, filed 7/13/2007); Whereas , notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (72 FR 40273, 7/24/2007) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and, Whereas , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest; Now, therefore , the Board hereby orders: The application to expand FTZ 185 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of March 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5422 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign Trade Zones Board Order No. 1546 Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, Candies Shipbuilders, L.L.C. (Shipbuilding), Houma, Louisiana Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: Whereas , the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ”. . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry; Whereas , the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest; Whereas , the Port of South Louisiana Commission, grantee of FTZ 124, has made application for authority to establish special-purpose subzone status at the shipbuilding facility of Candies Shipbuilders, L.L.C., located in Houma, Louisiana (FTZ Docket 17-2007, filed 4-20-2007); Whereas , notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (72 FR 21218, 4-30-2007); and, Whereas , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the application would be in the public interest if approval were given subject to the standard shipyard restriction on foreign steel mill products; Now, therefore , the Board hereby grants authority for subzone status for activity related to shipbuilding and repair at the shipyard of Candies Shipbuilders, L.L.C., in Houma, Louisiana (Subzone 124L), at the location described in the application, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and subject to the following special conditions: (1) any foreign steel mill products admitted to the subzone, including plate, angles, shapes, channels, rolled steel stock, bars, pipes and tubes, not incorporated into merchandise otherwise classified, and which is used in manufacturing, shall be subject to customs duties in accordance with applicable law, unless the Executive Secretary determines that the same item is not then being produced by a domestic steel mill; and, (2) Candies Shipbuilders, L.L.C., shall annually advise the Board's Executive Secretary (§ 400.28(a)(3)) as to significant new contracts with appropriate information concerning foreign purchases otherwise dutiable, so that the Board may consider whether any foreign dutiable items are being imported for manufacturing in the subzone primarily because of subzone status and whether the Board should consider requiring customs duties to be paid on such items. Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of March 2008. David M. Spooner Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5437 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Order No. 1544 Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, Lilly del Caribe, Inc. (Pharmaceutical Manufacturing), Carolina, Guayama and Mayaguëz, PR Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: Whereas , the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ”...the establishment... of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry; Whereas , the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results in significant public benefit and is in the public interest; Whereas , the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 7, has made application to the Board for authority to establish a special-purpose subzone at the pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities of Lilly del Caribe, Inc., located in Carolina, Guyama and Mayaguëz, Puerto Rico (FTZ Docket 44-2007, filed 8/27/07); Whereas , notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (72 FR 51407, 9/7/07); and, Whereas , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application would be in the public interest; Now, therefore , the Board hereby grants authority for subzone status for activity related to pharmaceutical manufacturing at the facilities of Lilly del Caribe, Inc., located in Carolina,Guayama and Mayaguëz, Puerto Rico (Subzone 7K), as described in the application and Federal Register notice, and subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of March 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5439 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1552] Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Eastern Shipbuilding Group; (Shipbuilding); Panama City and Allanton, FL Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “* * * the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry; Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest; Whereas, the Port of Panama City, Florida, grantee of FTZ 65, has made application for authority to establish special-purpose subzone status at the shipbuilding facilities of Eastern Shipbuilding Group, located in Panama City and Allanton, Florida (FTZ Docket 21-2007, filed 6-5-2007); Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (72 FR 32278, 6-12-2007); and, Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the application would be in the public interest if approval were given subject to the standard shipyard restriction on foreign steel mill products; Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone status for activity related to shipbuilding and repair at the shipyards of Eastern Shipbuilding Group, in Panama City and Allanton, Florida (Subzone 65A), at the locations described in the application, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and subject to the following special conditions: (1) Any foreign steel mill product admitted to the subzone, including plate, angles, shapes, channels, rolled steel stock, bars, pipes and tubes, not incorporated into merchandise otherwise classified, and which is used in manufacturing, shall be subject to customs duties in accordance with applicable law, unless the Executive Secretary determines that the same item is not then being produced by a domestic steel mill; (2) Eastern Shipbuilding Group shall annually advise the Board's Executive Secretary (§ 400.28(a)(3)) as to significant new contracts with appropriate information concerning foreign purchases otherwise dutiable, so that the Board may consider whether any foreign dutiable items are being imported for manufacturing in the subzone primarily because of subzone status and whether the Board should consider requiring customs duties to be paid on such items; and, (3) all foreign-origin textile floor coverings and carpet products (classified under HTSUS 5702.50) must be admitted to the subzone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) or domestic status (19 CFR 146.43). Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of March 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5424 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-421-811 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey or Angelica Mendoza, 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) 482-0193 or (202) 482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 24, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on purified carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands, covering the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 72 FR 48613 (August 24, 2007). The preliminary results for this review are currently due no later than April 1, 2008. Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published in the Federal Register . If the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the specified time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results The deadline for the preliminary results of this administrative review is currently April 1, 2008. The Department has determined that completion of the preliminary results within the statutory time period is not practicable. On January 16, 2008, the Department issued a section A-C supplemental questionnaire to respondent CP Kelco B.V. On February 15, 2008, the Department issued CP Kelco B.V. a supplemental cost questionnaire requesting additional information. CP Kelco B.V. submitted its sections A-C supplemental sales questionnaire response and its section D supplemental cost questionnaire response on February 14, 2008, and February 29, 2008, respectively. The Department requires additional time to review and analyze CP Kelco B.V.’s questionnaire responses, and to determine whether to issue additional supplemental sales and cost questionnaires to CP Kelco B.V. Therefore, given the additional time needed to conduct a complete analysis for this administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results to 365 days. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than July 30, 2008. The final results continue to be due no later than 120 days after publication of the notice of the preliminary results. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 11, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5417 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-401-808 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards or Angelica Mendoza, 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) 482-8029 or (202) 482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 24, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on purified carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden, covering the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 72 FR 48613 (August 24, 2007). The preliminary results for this review are currently due no later than April 1, 2008. Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results The deadline for the preliminary results of this administrative review is currently April 1, 2008. The Department has determined that completion of the preliminary results within the statutory time period is not practicable. On December 20, 2007, the Department initiated a sales-below-cost investigation for CP Kelco A.B. and requested that the company respond to Section D of the Department’s antidumping duty (cost) questionnaire. See Letter from Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, to CP Kelco A.B., dated December 20, 2007, and attached memorandum. CP Kelco A.B. submitted is response to Section D on January 8, 2008. The Department has not yet released a supplemental cost questionnaire to CP Kelco A.B. On February 1, 2008, the Department issued a section A through C supplemental questionnaire to respondent CP Kelco A.B. CP Kelco A.B. submitted its sections A through C supplemental sales questionnaire response on February 26, 2008. The Department requires additional time to review and analyze CP Kelco A.B.’s questionnaire responses, to issue a supplemental cost questionnaire, to issue additional supplemental sales questionnaires if necessary, and to conduct verification of the questionnaire responses, if necessary. Therefore, given the additional time needed to conduct a complete analysis for this administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results to 365 days. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than July 30, 2008. The final results continue to be due no later than 120 days after publication of the notice of the preliminary results. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 11, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5420 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-888 Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 11, 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ironing tables from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 72 FR 51781 (September 11, 2007) (“ AR2 Preliminary Results ”). This review covers exports from Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Since Hardware”). The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. For these final results, the Department revised and continued to apply the Since Hardware supplier price benchmark analysis. Furthermore, the Department revised its calculation of the surrogate financial ratios. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. See “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobby Wong or Michael Quigley, 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) 482-0409 or (202) 482-4047, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background We published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the second administrative review on September 11, 2007. See AR2 Preliminary Results. Following the AR2 Preliminary Results , on October 1, 2007, Since Hardware submitted surrogate financial information to value factors of production. On October 11, 2007, Home Products International Inc. (“petitioner”) and Since Hardware submitted case briefs. On October 16, 2007, both petitioner and Since Hardware also submitted rebuttal briefs. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the product covered consists of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables are designed and used principally for the hand ironing or pressing of garments or other articles of fabric. The subject tables have full-height leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an appropriate (often adjustable) height above the floor. The subject tables are produced in a variety of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, or matte, and they are available with various features, including iron rests, linen racks, and others. The subject ironing tables may be sold with or without a pad and/or cover. All types and configurations of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables are covered by this review. Furthermore, this order specifically covers imports of ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. For purposes of this order, the term “unassembled” ironing table means a product requiring the attachment of the leg assembly to the top or the attachment of an included feature such as an iron rest or linen rack. The term “complete” ironing table means product sold as a ready-to-use ensemble consisting of the metal-top table and a pad and cover, with or without additional features, e.g. iron rest or linen rack. The term “incomplete” ironing table means product shipped or sold as a “bare board” i.e. , a metal-top table only, without the pad and cover with or without additional features, e.g. iron rest or linen rack. The major parts or components of ironing tables that are intended to be covered by this order under the term “certain parts thereof” consist of the metal top component (with or without assembled supports and slides) and/or the leg components, whether or not attached together as a leg assembly. The order covers separately shipped metal top components and leg components, without regard to whether the respective quantities would yield an exact quantity of assembled ironing tables. Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded. Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or retract) are specifically excluded. The subject ironing tables were previously classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 9403.20.0010. Effective July 1, 2003, the subject ironing tables are classified under new HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. The subject metal top and leg components are classified under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) purposes, the Department's written description of the scope remains dispositive. Separate Rates Since Hardware requested a separate, company-specific antidumping duty rate. In the AR2 Preliminary Results , we found that Since Hardware had met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. Preliminary Results , 72 FR at 51782. We have not received any information since the Preliminary Results with respect to Since Hardware that would warrant reconsideration of our separate-rates determination. Therefore, we have assigned an individual dumping margin to Since Hardware for this review period. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying the * Final Results in the 2005-2006 Administrative Review of Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China * , (February 10, 2008) (“I&D Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room 1117 of the Department of Commerce. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes since the Preliminary Results Based on the comments received from interested parties, we have made company-specific changes to certain surrogate value calculations that affect the margin calculations for Since Hardware as discussed below. 1) Benchmark Methodology: For these final results, the Department has determined to apply the benchmark analysis consistent with the methodology applied in the preliminary results. However, for the Preliminary Results , the Department inadvertently failed to remove export sales into NME countries from the benchmark analysis. Therefore, for these final results, the Department corrected this inadvertent error and revised the benchmark analysis to exclude export sales into NME countries from the analysis. This is consistent with the Department's recent practice. See Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”), Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 71 FR 13091 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment “Issue: The use of China, a non-market economy, as the basis for normal value” (March 14, 2006). See also, Husteel Company, Ltd. v. United States , CIT Court No. 06-00075 (where the Department is currently defending this position before the CIT). For a more detailed discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; and the March 10, 2008, Memorandum to the File; From Blaine Wiltse, International Trade Compliance Analyst and Bobby Wong, Senior International Trade Complaince Analyst; Regarding Second Antidumping Administrative Review of Floor-standing, Metal-top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Since Hardware”) Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results, accompanying these final results. 2) Carriage Inward: For these final results, consistent the Department's practice in recent reviews, the Department has included Infiniti Modules freight-in expenses in the calculation of the denominator used to determine Since Hardware's surrogate financial ratios. See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 72 FR 71355 (December 18, 2007) (“ Tables & Chairs Final ”). For a more detailed discussion, see, Comment 2 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying these final results. 3) Plywood: In the preliminary results of the instant review, the Department inadvertently applied the incorrect harmonized tariff schedule code to value plywood. For these final results, the Department has corrected this clerical error (for further detail). See Comment 4 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying these final results. Final Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist: Exporter Margin (percent) Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. 0.34 % (de minimis) For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin for each company, see See March 10, 2008, Memorandum to the File; From Blaine Wiltse, International Trade Compliance Analyst and Bobby Wong, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst; Regarding Second Antidumping Administrative Review of Floor-standing, Metal-top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Since Hardware”) Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results. The public version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU. Assessment Rates Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 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 these final results of review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for subject ironing tables from the PRC via ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these 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, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for Since Hardware, the Department has calculated a de minimis margin for these final results, and therefore no cash deposit will be required for this company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, including those companies for which this review has been rescinded, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as the final 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 in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. This administrative review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 10, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5415 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-580-825 Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce SUMMARY: On September 11, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods, other than drill pipe (“OCTG”), from Korea for the period (“POR”) August 1, 2005 through July 25, 2006. See Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 72 FR 51793 (September 11, 2007) ( Preliminary Results ). This review covers the following manufacturers/exporters: Husteel Co., Ltd. (“Husteel”), SeAH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”), and Nexteel Co. Ltd. (Nexteel). Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the Preliminary Results . For the final dumping margins see the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-0780. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 22, 2007, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department revoked this antidumping duty order effective July 25, 2006. See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Mexico; Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders Pursuant to Second Five-year (Sunset) Reviews , 72 FR 34442-34443 (June 22, 2007) ( Revocation ). Therefore, the POR of this administrative review is August 1, 2005 through July 25, 2006. On September 11, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Korea. See Preliminary Results . Since the Preliminary Results , the following events have occurred. We received case briefs on October 11, 2007, and rebuttal briefs on October 16, 2007. On January 7, 2008, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department extended the deadline for issuing the final results by 60 days to March 10, 2008. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Administrative Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea , 72 FR 1205 (January 7, 2007). Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The products covered by this order are OCTG, hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including only oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (“API”) or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. The products subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under sub-headings: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, effective February 2, 2007, the subject merchandise is also classifiable under the following additional HTS item numbers: 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50. The HTSUS sub-headings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive of the scope of the order. Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) from Korea, March 10, 2008 ( Issues and Decisions Memorandum ), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The Issues and Decisions Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 1117 of the Department of Commerce main building and can be accessed directly at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decisions Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum is appended to this notice. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the calculations for the final dumping margin. The changes are discussed in detail in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum and in the Memorandum from Scott Lindsay, Case Analyst, to the File: Analysis of Husteel Corporation (“Husteel”) for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe from Korea, and Memorandum from Scott Lindsay, Case Analyst, to the File: Analysis of SeaH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”) for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe from Korea, dated March 10, 2008, on file in the CRU. There were no changes related to Nexteel from the Preliminary Results. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period August 1, 2005, through July 25, 2006: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) SeAH Steel Corporation 0.65 Husteel Co., Ltd. 0.29(de minimis) Nexteel Co., Ltd. 0.00 Cash Deposit Requirements Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department revoked this order and notified U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after July 25, 2006, the effective date of revocation of this antidumping duty AD order. See Revocation . Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer- specific duty assessment rates (or, when the importer was unknown by the respondent, customer-specific duty assessment rates) on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales observations involving each importer to the total entered value of the examined sales observations for that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a discussion of this clarification, see Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 doubled antidumping duties. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). 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. These final results of administrative review and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 10, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX List of Issues 1. Husteel's Profit and Selling Expense Ratios for Constructed Value 2. Adjustments to Husteel's G&A Expense Ratio 3. SeAH's Further Manufacturing and Selling Expense Ratios [FR Doc. E8-5416 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-427-827 Sodium Metal from France: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Joy Zhang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-5973 or (202) 482-1168, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 13, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the antidumping duty investigation of sodium metal from France. See Sodium Metal from France: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation , 72 FR 65295 (November 20, 2007). The notice of initiation stated that the Department would issue its preliminary determination for this investigation no later than 140 days after the date of issuance of the initiation, in accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The preliminary determination is currently due no later than April 1, 2008. Postponement of Preliminary Determination On February 29, 2008, the petitioner, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Inc., made a timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination. The petitioner requested postponement of the preliminary determination in order to allow for additional time to evaluate the respondent's questionnaire response in this investigation. Under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period within which the preliminary determination must be made under subsection (b)(1), then the Department may postpone making the preliminary determination under subsection (b)(1) until not later than the 190th day after the date on which the administrative authority initiated the investigation. For the reason identified by the petitioner and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act by 50 days to May 21, 2008. The deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless extended. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). Dated: March 12, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5414 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NWHI Mokupapapa Discovery Center Exhibit Evaluation AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at dHynek@doc.gov ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Linda Schubert, 808.933.8184 or linda.schubert@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Mokupapapa Discovery Center (Center) is an outreach arm of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument that reaches 60,000 people each year in Hilo, Hawaii. The Center was created four years ago to help raise support for the creation of a National Marine Sanctuary in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Since that time, the area has been proclaimed a Marine National Monument and the main messages we are trying to share with the public have changed to better reflect the new monument status and the joint management by the three co-trustees of the Monument. We therefore are seeking to find out if people visiting our Center are getting our new messages by conducting an optional exit survey. II. Method of Collection Surveys will be conducted by in-person interview as people exit the Center. Interviewers will record responses on paper, and later transfer them to an electronic database. III. Data OMB Control Number: None. Form Number: None. Type of Review: Regular submission. Affected Public: Individuals or households. Estimated Number of Respondents: 250. Estimated Time Per Response: 7 minutes. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 29. Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: March 12, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5323 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF70 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that the subject Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application from the University of New England (UNE) and the University of New Hampshire (UNH) that would allow Northeast multispecies vessels to possess spiny dogfish for a spiny dogfish life history study contains all the required information and warrants further consideration. The Assistant Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made. DATES: Comments on this document must be received on or before April 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by e-mail to dogfish.efp@noaa.gov . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Comments on UNE dogfish possession EFP proposal.” Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on UNE dogfish possession EFP proposal.” Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Silva, Cooperative Research Program Specialist, phone: 978-281-9326, fax: 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMP implemented a semi-annual quota. When a semi-annual quota is projected to be harvested, NMFS closes the fishery until the next semi-annual quota opens. During a dogfish closure, no vessel may fish for or possess dogfish. A dogfish closure is currently in effect through April 30, 2008. As part of a continuing research project, UNE, in collaboration with the UNH, is investigating Gulf of Maine dogfish age and growth, and size at sexual maturity characteristics. The applicant states that current dogfish life history data need updating, particularly in light of recent stock declines and potential regional variability in life history traits. The project investigators are attempting to develop a more accurate aging tool, which would improve age and size at sexual maturity determinations. The applicant notes that these data would provide critical life history information needed for effective dogfish management decisions, particularly for the Gulf of Maine. The applicant would collect at least 10 dogfish samples per month per sex, but not to exceed 50 dogfish per month. The applicant would require only partial samples from May, June, November, and December (maximum of 25 per month) to complete their monthly sample objectives. Therefore, the maximum number of dogfish landed under this EFP would not exceed 600 individuals. Samples would be collected during commercial NE multispecies fishing trips in areas open to commercial NE multispecies regulations in statistical areas 125 and 132. Vessels would fish with otter trawl and gillnet gear that is fully compliant with NE multispecies regulations and adhere to the following conditions: Possess 50 or fewer dogfish per trip; all live dogfish bycatch would be returned to the ocean as quickly as possible; no dogfish may be landed for sale; dogfish would not be targeted during the fishing trips. If approved, participating vessels would not be allowed to possess or retain more than 50 dogfish on any trip, and no dogfish may be sold. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs. The applicant may place requests for minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and minimal so as not to change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: March 12, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5348 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG32 Unified Synthesis Product Development Committee AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of establishment of Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Unified Synthesis Product Development Committee (USPDC) and announcement of public meeting. SUMMARY: Establishment of the USPDC will result in the provision of advice to the Under Secretary of Commerce on the content of a report that will integrate and evaluate the findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program in the context of current and projected global climate change trends, both human-induced and natural, and analyze the effects of current and projected climate change on: ecosystems and biological diversity; agriculture; energy production and use; land and water resources; transportation; and human health and social systems. This advice will be used by NOAA to develop a final product that addresses these topic areas. Following establishment of the USPDC, the first Committee meeting will be held. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public. DATES: The meeting will convene at 8 a.m. on Monday, March 31, 2008 and adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 1, 2008. Meeting information, including the names of the Lead Author team nominees, will be available online on the NOAA Climate Program Office CCSP website: http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./ccsp/index.html. ADDRESSES: The first meeting of the USPDC will be held at the Hilton O'Hare Airport Hotel, Chicago, IL. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Christopher D. Miller, the USPDC Designated Federal Official (DFO) and the Program Manager, NOAA/OAR Climate Program Office Climate Change Data and Detection Program Element, Climate Program Office, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 12239, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone 301-734-1241, e-mail: Christopher.D.Miller@noaa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and the General Services Administration (GSA) rule of Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR part 102-3, and after consultation with GSA, the Secretary of Commerce has determined that the establishment of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Unified Synthesis Product Development Committee (USPDC) is in the public interest, in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department by law. The USPDC will consist of no more than 35 members to be appointed by the Under Secretary to assure a balanced representation among preeminent scientists, educators, and experts reflecting the full scope of the scientific issues addressed in the CCSP Unified Synthesis Product. The USPDC will function solely as an advisory body, and in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Its charter will be filed under the Act 15 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Status Please note that meeting times and agenda topics described below are subject to change. The meeting will be open to public participation and will include a 30-minute public comment period on March 31 from 8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. (check website to confirm this time). In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. Written comments will also be accepted and (at least 35 copies) should be received by the USPDC Designated Federal Official (DFO) by March 20, 2008 to provide sufficient time for review. Written comments received after March 20 will be distributed to the USPDC, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. Matters To Be Considered The meeting will discuss plans for development of the First Draft of the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Unified Synthesis Product. Dated: March 11, 2008. Mary M. Glackin, Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere. [FR Doc. E8-5440 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG36 Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Port of Anchorage Marine Terminal Redevelopment Project, Anchorage, Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; receipt of application for subsequent letters of authorization; request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), notification is hereby given that NMFS has received an application from the Port of Anchorage (herein after “Port”) to take small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to the 5-year Phase II portion of the Marine Terminal Redevelopment Project (herein after “Project”) at the Port, Anchorage, Alaska. Species which could be potentially taken from Port construction include the beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina ), harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ), and killer whale ( Orcinus orca ). NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue a 1-year incidental harassment authorization (IHA) for the 2008 construction season (April-October) and its intent to promulgate regulations in 2009 governing the take of marine mammals over a 5-year period incidental to the activities described herein. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than April 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is PR1.0648-XG36@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: Jaclyn Daly or Jolie Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289. 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 (Secretary) 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) if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings may be granted for up to 5 years 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 taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as: an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Under 50 CFR 216.104(b) of NMFS' implementing regulations for the MMPA, NMFS must publish in the Federal Register a notice of a proposed IHA and a notice of receipt for a request for the implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking. Information gathered during the associated comment period is considered by NMFS in developing, if appropriate, regulations governing the issuance of Letters of Authorizations (LOAs) for the proposed activity. Summary of Request The Project is divided into 2 phases. Phase I of the project did not involve any substantive in-water noise-producing activities, however, and on May 9, 2006, NMFS concurred with the Port that incidental take of marine mammals was not likely to occur and an IHA was not necessary if operations ceased if marine mammals were seen within 50 m of in-water fill activities. In contrast to phase I, phase II of the Port expansion project involves considerable in-water construction, including pile driving, which will introduce a sound into the marine environment and could harass marine mammals. Following several delays and design changes, on September 13, 2007, the Port re-applied for an IHA for the 2008 construction season and a 5-year rulemaking and letters of authorization (LOAs) for the subsequent 2009-2012 construction seasons. The Project is scheduled to be complete in 2012. The Project is designed to upgrade and expand the Port by replacing aging and obsolete structures and provide additional dock and backland areas. Located on the east bank of Knik Arm in upper Cook Inlet (CI), the 129-acre Port is operating at or above sustainable practical capacity. The expansion of the Port is necessary to adequately support the economic growth of Anchorage and the state of Alaska through 2025. The Port currently serves 80 percent of Alaska's populated area, and it handles over 90 percent of consumer goods sold within the Alaskan Railroad distribution area (the Alaska Railroad runs from Seward through Anchorage, Denali, and Fairbanks to North Pole, with spurs to Whittier and Palmer (locally known as “The Railbelt”). Construction activities that will alter the environmental baseline include pile driving, dredging, and backfilling and compaction of fill. These activities have the potential to affect marine mammals from sounds generated from construction, alteration of habitat, and increased vessel noise due to Port expansion. Of the activities listed above, pile driving has the potential to result in harassment to marine mammals due to source levels and nature of operations, and the Port has requested authorization for takes resulting from this activity. Because pile driving has the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals located in Knik Arm, an authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) or (D) of the MMPA is warranted. Action Area Cook Inlet is a semi-enclosed tidal estuary, extending roughly 370 km (200 nm.) southwest from Knik and Turnagain Arms, which almost surround the city of Anchorage, to Kamishak and Kachemak Bays. The inlet has marine connections with Shelikof Strait and the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), and freshwater input from many large rivers (Muench et al. , 1978). The shoreline of Cook Inlet is irregular, comprised of a series of channels, coves, flats, and marshes. The Port is located within the Municipality of Anchorage between Ship Creek and Elemendorf Air Force Base on the eastern shore of Knik Arm. Knik Arm, is a relatively shallow, 30 mile long waterway that is 2-6 miles in width. This estuary is extremely silty and exhibits some of the strongest currents (up to 8 kts) and tidal variations (30+ft) in the world. Knik Arm contains many gyres created by predominant headlands that are important to beluga prey distribution. Construction Process The Project calls for an open cell sheet pile (OCSP) design. Pile driving of steel 36-inch (91.4 cm) and H-piles, along with open cell sheet piles, will occur in Phase II of the Project from April to October, annually, and is proposed to be completed in 2012. Pile driving is necessary to construct the waterfront bulkhead structure that will facilitate increased dock space and the fendering system. The bulkhead will be comprised of conjoining face and tail sheet-pile cells, forming a row of U-shaped, open cell sheet pile structures. The cells will serve to retain the fill material and provide the vertical bulkhead docking structure for berthing barges and ships. Approximately 17 face sheets and one tail wall per 27.5 linear ft (8.4 m) of dock face will be used. Each tail wall will extend up to 183 ft (55.8 m) landward from the dock face and include up to 110 tail sheets. Approximately 30 linear ft. of open cell sheet pile wall will be constructed in a 10 hour period. In 2008, it is estimated that 1,807 open cell face sheets and 8,175 tail sheets will be erected at the Port. These conjoining sheets will equate to 2,923 ft. (891 m) (face length) of open cell sheet piles weighing approximately 13,412 tons. A pile-driving hammer will be used to install sheet piles to the desired tip elevation ( i.e. , how far the sheet pile extrudes from the substrate). Sheet piles will be driven with a vibratory hammer to the maximum extent possible ( i.e. , until desired depth is achieved and/or to refusal, prior to using an impact hammer). Standard tip elevation for a dredge depth of -35 ft (10.7 m) and -45 ft (13.7 m) mean low low water are -50 and -60 ft (15-18 m), respectively. Two methods of pile driving, impact and vibratory, will occur. Impact pile driving will only occur when vibratory driving is not sufficient. It is estimated that pile driving will be 40 percent vibratory and 60 percent impact for the first year of construction (2008) due to the dense clay substrate in the North Extension and Barge Berths areas. The percentage of impact pile driving will decrease in subsequent years. Work hours for pile driving are anticipated to be 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., up to seven days a week; however, proposed mitigation will restrict impact pile driving on two hours either side of low tide due to high beluga use during this time (see Mitigation section). Backfilling and compaction of fill material will involve placing clean sand, gravel, or stone immediately behind the sheet-pile face up to an elevation of 30 ft (9.14 m). Upon completion, 135 acres of wetland would be filled, eliminating 9,000 linear ft (2.74 km) of intertidal habitat. To complete the 2008 Project tasks, approximately 1,600,000 cubic yards (cy) of suitable engineered and common fill material will be placed behind vertical steel or rock retaining features at the North Extension area which will result in the fill of as much as 18.4 acres of tideland. A vibratory probe and pile driving hammer will be used at evenly spaced locations to consolidate the fill. NMFS does not anticipate that this activity (i.e., fill compaction) will acoustically harass marine mammals due to the absorption of sound by the fill which will appreciably reduce sound energy released into the water. Upon completion of Phase II of the Project, which will require additional take authorization such as subsequent LOAs, approximately 7,900 linear ft. (2.41 km) of dock parallel to and approximately 400 ft (122 m) west of the face of the existing dock structure, along with backfilling, will have been added to the Port. The new dock face will include 7,430 ft (2.26 km) of vertical sheet-pile wharf and 470 ft (143 m) for a dry barge berth. The completed marine terminal will include seven modern dedicated ship berths; two dedicated barge berths; rail access; modern shore-side facilities; equipment to accommodate cruise passengers; cement bulk, roll on/roll off and load on/load off cargo; containers; general cargo, military deployments, general cargo on barges, petroleum, oil, and lubricants; and additional land use area to support expanding military and commercial operations. More information on the Project design, phasing plan, and construction can be found at www.portofanchorage.org. Marine Mammals Affected by the Project Cook Inlet is utilized by several species of marine mammals; however, most of these are confined to the Lower Inlet and would not be affected by the Project. In Knik Arm, the CI beluga whale is the most abundant marine mammal. Harbor seals, harbor porpoise, and killer whales are also found in the Inlet but they do not display a regular presence in Knik Arm. There have been no published sightings of Steller sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus ) in Knik Arm, only a single adult male in the Susitna Flats area; therefore, Steller sea lions are not anticipated to be affected by the Project and will not be considered further. If, by chance, a marine mammal not authorized to be taken is seen around the construction area, shut down will be required so as to avoid unlawful take. NMFS is proposing to allow 34 beluga whale takes, 20 harbor seals takes, 20 harbor porpoise takes, and 5 killer whales takes, by Level B harassment only, incidental to the activities occurring in the 2008 construction year. Beluga take numbers for future LOAs, if issued, will be calculated upon gathering further information from monitoring and acoustic data as pile driving hours will change as well as percentage of impact and vibratory driving. Take numbers for other marine mammals are expected to remain the same throughout the construction phase of the Project. Further information on the status and distribution of Alaskan marine mammals can be found in the 2006 NMFS' Alaskan Stock Assessment Report ( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2006.pdf ) and http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources . Beluga Whales Status and Abundance In the U.S. waters, beluga whales comprise five distinct stocks: Beaufort Sea, Eastern Chukchi Sea, Eastern Bering Sea, Bristol Bay, and Cook Inlet (Angliss and Outlaw, 2006). The only stock likely to be affected by the proposed construction activities at the Port is the CI stock. This population is genetically isolated from other populations by the geographic barrier of the Alaska peninsula and by their year- round residency in the Inlet (Hobbs et al. , 2006). The CI beluga population has declined significantly over the years. Historical data suggest this population once numbered around 1,300 (Calkins, 1988). NMFS systematic aerial surveys documented a decline in abundance of nearly 50 percent between 1994 and 1998, from an estimate of 653 whales to 347 whales (Hobbs et al. , 2000). Aerial annual abundance surveys conducted each June/July from 1999 to 2005 have resulted in abundance estimates of 367, 435, 386, 313, 357, 366, and 278 whales for each year, respectively (Rugh et al. , 2005, NMFS unpublished data). According to NMFS 2006 stock assessment report, the population estimate for CI belugas is 278 with a minimum population estimate of 238; however, more recent surveys estimate the current population as of 2006 to be 302 belugas (Rugh et al. , 2006). This stock is listed as depleted under the MMPA and was proposed for listing under the ESA on April 20, 2007 (72 FR 19854). Subsistence harvest is believed to have been the major contributor to the population decline (NMFS 2006). NMFS estimated that the average annual take for subsistence harvest, including whales that were struck and lost, was 67 whales per year from 1994 through 1998. Annual harvest estimates for 1994 thru 1998 are 21 whales (1994), 70 whales (1995), 98 whales (1996), 70 whales (1997) and 50 whales (1998). The harvest, which was as high as 20 percent of the stock in 1996, was sufficiently high to account for the 14 percent annual rate of decline in the stock during the period from 1994 through 1998 (Hobbs et al. 2000). The last year in which unregulated subsistence harvests occurred was 1998. In 1999 and 2000, Public Laws 106-31 and 106-553 established a moratorium on CI beluga whale harvests except for subsistence hunts by Alaska Natives and conducted under cooperative management agreements between NMFS and affected Alaska Native Organizations. This moratorium was made permanent in December 2000. In 2003 and 2004, respectively, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (68 FR 55604, September 26, 2003) and Final Interim Regulations Governing the Taking of Cook Inlet Beluga Whale by Alaska Natives for Subsistence Purposes (69 FR 17973, April 6, 2004) were completed to address prior beluga whale harvests. In keeping with sections 101(b) and 103(d) of the MMPA, NMFS Alaska Region convened a formal administrative hearing on the proposed harvest regulations before an Administrative Law Judge and seven interested parties in December 2000, in Anchorage, Alaska. That administrative hearing process culminated in 2005 with the Administrative Law Judge's final decision recommending a long-term plan for managing the subsistence harvests of CI belugas by Alaska Natives. NMFS has since then completed a Draft Supplemental EIS (72 FR 73798, December 28, 2007) proposing long-term harvest regulations through recovery. Despite strict harvest limits since 1999, the population has not recovered. Factors inhibiting recovery include vessel traffic, small stock size, restricted summer range, habitat alteration, and natural mortality (NMFS, 2006). Distribution The CI beluga's range is believed to be largely confined to CI with a high occurrence of animals in the upper Inlet and Knik Arm during the spring, summer, and fall seasons. These whales demonstrate site fidelity to regular summer concentration areas (Seaman et al. , 1985), typically near river mouths and associated shallow, warm and low salinity waters (Moore et al. , 2000). In the winter, beluga whales concentrate in deeper waters in mid- Inlet down to Kalgin Island with occasional forays into the upper Inlet, even to the upper ends of Knik and Turnagain Arms. In Knik Arm, beluga whales generally are observed arriving in May and often use the area all summer, feeding on the various salmon runs and moving with the tides. There may be more intensive use of Knik Arm in August and through the fall, coinciding with the coho run. Whales will gather in Eagle Bay and elsewhere on the east side of Knik Arm and sometimes in Goose Bay on the west side of Knik Arm. During high tides, belugas are generally concentrated around prime feeding habitats in the upper reaches of the Arm, an area unaffected by the Project. They often retreat to the lower portion of Knik Arm during low tides. Fourteen belugas were satellite-tagged in upper CI in Knik Arm between late July and early September 2000-2002. These tags provided location and movement data through the fall and winter and into May. During summer and autumn, whales were concentrated in river and bays in Upper CI with whales traveling back and forth between Knik Arm ( e.g. , Eagle River), Chichaloon Bay, and upper Turnagain Arm, although some whales also spent time offshore. When in these areas, whales made rapid movements between distinct bays or river mouths (moving either to the east or to the west of Fire Island, past Pt. Woronzof and the Port of Anchorage) and often remained stationary in one area for many weeks followed by a rapid movement to another area (within a day). One whale tracked in 2001 moved back and forth between the three bodies of water listed above seven times in three months. Area use in August was the most limited of all months (approximately 50-75 percent of the recorded locations in August were in Knik Arm, concentrated near Eagle River. In September they continued to use Knik Arm and increased use of the Susitna delta, Turnagain Arm and Chickaloon Bay, and also extended use along the west coast of the upper Inlet to the Beluga River. In October, beluga whales ranged widely down the Inlet in coastal areas, reaching Chinitna Bay, and Tuxedni Bay and continued to use Knik Arm, Turnagain Arm, Chickaloon Bay, and Trading Bay (MacArthur River). November use was similar to September. In December, beluga whales moved offshore with locations distributed throughout the upper to mid-Inlet and in January, February, and March, they used the central offshore waters moving as far south as Kalgin Island and slightly beyond. Belugas also ranged widely during February and March with excursions to Knik and Turnagain Arms, in spite of greater than 90 percent ice coverage. Average daily travel distance ranged from 11-30 km per day. No satellite tags were on animals from April-mid July. Social Dynamics Beluga whales are extremely social animals that typically migrate, hunt, and interact together. Nowak (1991) reports the average pod size as 10 animals, although beluga whales may occasionally form larger groups, often during migrations. Groups of 10 to several hundred beluga whales have often been observed during summers in CI; however solitary animals and smaller groups are not uncommon around the Port (LGL 2005, 2006, 2007). Native hunters have stated that beluga whale form family groups and suggest that there are four types of beluga whales in CI, distinguished by their size and habits (Huntington 2000); however, this has not been confirmed. Feeding Beluga whales are opportunistic feeders known to prey on a wide variety of animals. They eat octopus, squid, crabs, shrimp, clams, mussels, snails, sandworms, and fish such as capelin, cod, herring, smelt, flounder, sole, sculpin, lamprey, lingcod and salmon (Perez, 1990; Haley, 1986; Klinkhart, 1966). Natives also report that CI beluga whale feed on freshwater fish: trout, whitefish, northern pike, and grayling (Huntington, 2000), and on tomcod during the spring (Fay et al. , 1984). Salmon and eulachon species are high quality prey that have high lipid (fat) content, up to 21 percent (Payne et al. , 1999). Calkins (1989) recovered 13 salmon tags from the stomach of an adult beluga whale found dead in Turnagain Arm. These salmon had been tagged in upper Susitna River. Beluga whales in captivity may consume 2.5-3 percent of their body weight daily, or approximately 40-60 pounds (18.2- 27.3 kg). Wild beluga whale populations, faced with an irregular supply of food or with increased metabolic needs, may easily exceed these amounts while feeding on concentrations of eulachon and salmon. Beluga whale hunters in CI reported one whale having 19 adult king salmon in its stomach (Huntington 2000) and an adult male beluga whale had 12 adult coho salmon in its stomach at a weight of 27.8 kg (61.5 lbs). Herring may be another important forage fish for beluga whales as identified by a 1993 smolt survey of the upper Inlet which found juvenile herring to be the second-most abundant fish species collected. These herring were primarily caught along the northwest shore, including the Susitna delta (Moulton, 1994). Beluga whales capture and swallow their prey whole, using their blunt teeth only to grab. These whales often feed cooperatively. At the Port, beluga whales have been observed positioning one whale along a rip rap dock, while a second whale herds salmon along the structure toward the stationary beluga whale. The concentrations of CI beluga whales offshore of several important salmon streams in the upper Inlet is assumed to be a feeding strategy which takes advantage of the bathymetry of the area. The fish are funneled into the channels formed by the river mouths and the shallow waters act as a gauntlet for salmon as they move past waiting beluga whales. Dense concentrations of prey appear essential to beluga whale feeding behavior. Hazard (1988) hypothesized that beluga whales were more successful feeding in rivers where prey were concentrated than in bays where prey were dispersed. Habitat Since their rapid population decline, CI beluga distribution has also decreased (Rugh et al. , 2000); however, there is obvious and repeated use of certain habitats. From April through November whales concentrate at river mouths and tidal flat areas, moving in and out with the tides. The timing and location of eulachon and salmon runs affect beluga whale feeding behavior and have a strong influence on their summer movements. Beluga and prey distribution is heavily dependent upon tides in Knik Arm with approximately 70 percent of sightings at the Port from monitoring data in 2006 being around low tide. The range of tides at Anchorage is extreme at about 29 feet and the observed extreme low water is 6.4 feet below mean low low water. Tidal energy is the most dominant force driving water circulation in Knik Arm. Because of predominantly shallow depths, tides within Knik Arm have a much larger range than in the main body of Cook Inlet (KABATA, 2006). Maximum current speeds in Knik Arm, observed during spring ebb tide, exceed 7 knots (12 feet/second). Beluga whale concentration areas correspond with prey availability. Beluga whales frequently move in and out of deeper water and between feeding, calving, and nursery areas throughout the mid and upper Inlet. Access to these areas and corridors in between these areas is important. Knik Arm, Turnagain Arm, Chickaloon River and the Susitna River delta areas are used extensively. It is possible these sites provide for other biological needs, such as calving or molting. Such habitat sites and use have been reported elsewhere in Alaska, although there is not adequate information to identify these calving and molting habitat attributes in Knik Arm. NMFS has characterized the relative value of four habitats as part of the management and recovery strategy in its “Draft Conservation Plan for the CI Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas)” (NMFS, 2006). These are sites where beluga whales are most consistently observed, where feeding behavior has been documented, and where dense numbers of whales occur within a relatively confined area of the Inlet. Type 1 habitat is termed “High Value/High Sensitivity” and includes what NMFS believes to be the most important and sensitive areas of the Inlet for beluga whales. Type 2 is termed “High Value,” and includes summer feeding areas and winter habitats in waters where whales typically occur in lesser densities or in deeper waters. Type 3 habitat occurs in the offshore areas of the mid and upper Inlet and also includes wintering habitat. Type 4 habitat describes the remaining portions of the range of these whales within Cook Inlet. The habitat within the Project footprint that will be directly impacted from construction is considered Type 2 habitat while just north of the Port is classified as Type 1. Beluga Hearing Sensitivity Beluga whales are characterized as mid-frequency odontocetes but have an excellent range of hearing. Hearing of belugas is believed to be in the frequency range of 40 Hz-150kHz with keen hearing at 10-100kHz. Above 100 kHz their sensitivity drops off very fast (Au, 1993) and below 8 kHz the decrease in sensitivity is more gradual at approximately 11 dB per octave (Awbrey et al. , 1988). While their peak sensitivity range is outside of most industrial sounds, studies have shown that belugas can hear and react to such low frequency noise, dependent upon intensity (i.e., decibels). Awbrey et al. (1988) conducted a study on captive, trained belugas to discern low frequency threshold levels. Belugas reacted, on average, to 125 Hz, 25 Hz, and 500Hz at 121dB, 118dB, and 108 dB, respectively. Therefore, as frequency increases, sensitivity also increases. Harbor Seals Harbor seals are important upper-trophic marine predators that occupy a broad range in Alaska from approximately 130° W to 172° E (over 3,500 km east to west) and from 61° N to 51° N (over 1,000 km north to south). Currently, harbor seals in Alaska are divided into three stocks: Bearing Sea, Gulf of Alaska (GOA), and Southeast Alaska. While new genetic information has lead to a reassessment of this delineation, it has not yet been finalized. Harbor seals which could be affected by the Project belong to the Gulf of Alaska stock. Based on aerial GOA and Aleutian Islands surveys, in 1996 and 1999 respectively, the current abundance estimate for this stock is 45,975 (CV = 0.04) with a minimum population estimate of 44,453 (NMFS, 2006). Sources of anthropogenic caused mortality for this stock include interactions with fishing gear (mean annual mortality is approximately 24 animals), subsistence hunting (mean annual harvest equals 795), and, to a lesser degree, illegal intentional killing. Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice, and feed in marine, estuaries, and occasionally fresh waters. They are generally non-migratory, with local movements associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction; however, some long-distance movements have been recorded from tagged animals (mostly juveniles). The major haul-out sites for harbor seals are located in Lower CI with the closest identified harbor seal haul-out site to the Port approximately 25 miles south along Chickaloon Bay in the southern portion of Turnagain Arm. However, harbor seals have been observed around the Port. In 2004-2005, 22 harbor seal sightings were reported over a 13-month period comprising of 14,000 survey hours. From these surveys, it is estimated that harbor seals occur in a density of approximately 1.7 animals per month in Knik Arm (LGL unpubl. data). Pinniped hearing is measured for 2 mediums, air and water. In water hearing ranges from 1-180 kHz with peak sensitivity around 32kHz. In air, hearing capabilities are greatly reduced to 1-22kHz with sensitivity at 12kHz. This range is comparable to human hearing (0.02 to 20 kHz). Harbor seals have the potential to be affected by in-air and in-water noise associated with construction activities. Harbor Porpoise Harbor porpoise are found within Cook Inlet but in low abundance, especially in Knik Arm. Currently, the population estimate for the Gulf of Alaska harbor porpoise stock is 41,854 with a minimum population estimate of 34,740 (NMFS 2006). Estimated density of harbor porpoise in Cook Inlet is only 7.2 per 1000 square kilometers (Dahlheim et al. 2000). The highest monthly count recorded in upper Cook Inlet between April and October is 18 (LGL 2006). Harbor porpoise have a wide hearing range and the highest upper-frequency limit of all odontocetes studied. They have a hearing range of 250 Hz-180kHz with maximum sensitivity between 16-140 kHz. Killer Whales Killer whales in the Gulf of Alaska are divided into two ecotypes: resident and transient. Killer whales are relatively common in lower Cook Inlet (at least 100 sightings from 1975 to 2002), but in the upper Inlet, north of Kalgin Island, sightings are infrequent (11 in 25 yrs). Transient killer whales are known to feed on the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales and all recorded predation events have occurred in the upper Inlet. Transient killer whales seen in Cook Inlet belong to the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient Stock or the small AT1 Stock. Based on the 2006 NMFS stock assessment reports, the minimum population estimate for the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock of killer whales is 314 animals based on the count of individuals using photo-identification. As of 2004, the AT1 population size is eight animals, a 64-percent decrease from 22 whales in 1989. The hearing of killer whales is well developed. They have hearing ranges of 0.05 to 100 kHz which is lower than many other odontocetes. Peak sensitivity is around 15 kHz. Impacts to Marine Mammals Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air or water. Sound levels are compared to a reference sound pressure to identify the medium. For air and water, these reference pressures are “re 20 μPa” and “re 1 μPa”, respectively (unless otherwise noted, sound levels should be considered as measured in water, i.e. , re 1 μPa). Sound is generally characterized by several variables, including frequency and sound level. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while sound level describes the sound's loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound level increases or decreases exponentially with each dB of change. For example, 10-dB yields a sound level 10 times more intense than 1 dB, while a 20 dB level equates to 100 times more intense, and a 30 dB level is 1,000 times more intense. However, it should be noted that humans perceive a 10 dB increase in sound level as only a doubling of sound loudness, and a 10 dB decrease in sound level as a halving of sound loudness. More information on sound can be found at www.dosits.org . As stated, noise from pile driving is expected to harass marine mammals present in the exposure area. Marine mammals use sound for vital life functions, and introducing sound into their environment could be disrupting to those behaviors. Sound (hearing and vocalization/echolocation) serves 4 main functions for odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins). These functions include (1) providing information about their environment; (2) communication; (3) enabling remote detection of prey; and (4) enabling detection of predators. Sounds and non-acoustic stimuli will be generated and emitted into the aquatic environment by vehicle traffic, vessel operations, roadbed construction, and vibratory and impact pile driving. The distances to which these sounds are audible depend on source levels, ambient noise levels, and sensitivity of the receptor (Richardson et al. 1995). As stated, pile driving will affect marine mammals at a level which could cause behavioral harassment. Mitigation measures (see Mitigation section) are expected to prevent injurious exposure. In an acoustic study conducted at the Port in October 2007, hydrophones were used to measure sound propagation during both impact and vibratory pile-driving. For impact pile-driving, the most conservative measurement showed that at 19m the received level was 177 dB re 1 μPa (root mean square (rms) ranging from 100-15,000 Hz. For vibratory pile-driving, the most conservative measurement showed that at 20m the received level was 162 dB ranging from 400-2,500 Hz. These measurements were used to estimate the distances at which animals might be exposed to received levels that could lead to injury or behavioral harassment. Impact pile driving requires much more energy ( i.e. , louder) than vibratory pile-driving due to the nature of the operations. However, low frequency sound travels poorly in shallow water, so transmission of these sounds in Knik Arm is expected to be confined to relatively short ranges. Sounds generated from pile driving, dredging, and other construction activities will be detectable underwater and/or in air some distance away from the area of activity. Audible distance, or received levels (RLs) will depend on the nature of the sound source, ambient noise conditions, and the sensitivity of the receptor to the sound (Richardson et al. , 1995). Type and significance of marine mammal behavioral reactions are likely to be dependent upon, among other parameters, the behavioral state (e.g., feeding, traveling, etc.) of the animal at the time it receives the stimulus, as well as the distance from the sound source and the level of the sound relative to ambient conditions (Southall et al. , 2007). Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects Temporary or permanent hearing impairment is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very loud sounds, but no studies have been conducted that examine impacts to marine mammal from pile driving noise. Current NMFS practice regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-level sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to impulsive sounds of 180 and 190 dB rms or above, respectively, are considered to have been taken by Level A ( i.e. , injurious) harassment. Behavioral harassment (Level B) is considered to have occurred when marine mammals are exposed to sounds at or above 160dB rms for impulse sounds ( e.g. , impact pile driving) and 120dB rms for continuous noise ( e.g. , vibratory pile driving), but below injurious thresholds. These levels are considered precautionary. Several aspects of the planned monitoring and mitigation measures for this project are designed to detect marine mammals occurring near pile driving, and to avoid exposing them to sound that could potentially cause hearing impairment ( e.g. , mandatory shut down zones). In addition, marine mammals will be given a chance to leave the area during “soft start” and “ramp-up” procedures to avoid exposure to full energy pile driving. In those cases, the avoidance responses of the animals themselves will reduce or eliminate any possibility of hearing impairment. Hearing impairment is measured in two forms: temporary threshold shift and permanent threshold shift. Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). Southall et al. (2007) considers a 6 dB TTS ( i.e. , baseline thresholds are elevated by 6 dB) sufficient to be recognized as an unequivocal deviation and thus a sufficient definition of TTS-onset. Auditory fatigue ( i.e. , TTS) in mid-frequency cetaceans has been measured after exposure to tones, impulsive sounds, and octave-band noise. Because it is non-injurious, NMFS considers TTS as Level B harassment that is mediated by physiological effects on the auditory system; however, NMFS does not consider onset TTS to be the lowest level at which Level B Harassment may occur. While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be louder in order to be heard. TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS-onset threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the noise ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals. For toothed whales exposed to single short pulses, the TTS threshold appears to be, to a first approximation, a function of the energy content of the pulse (Finneran et al. , 2002). Laboratory experiments investigating TTS onset for belugas have been conducted for both pulse and non-pulse sounds. Finneran et al. (2000) exposed a trained captive beluga whale to a single pulse from an explosion simulator. No TTS threshold shifts were observed at the highest received exposure levels (179dB re 1 μPa2-s [SEL]; approximately 199 dB rms). It should be noted in this study that amplitudes at frequencies below 1 kHz were not produced accurately to represent predictions for the explosions. Another study was done using seismic waterguns with a single acoustic pulse (Finneran et al. 2002). Measured TTS was 7 and 6 dB in the beluga at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively, after exposure to intense single pulses (186 dB SEL; ~ 208 dB rms). Schludt et al. , 2000 demonstrated temporary shifts in masked hearing thresholds for belugas occurring generally between 192 and 201 dB rms (192-201 dB SEL) after exposure to intense, non-pulse, 1-s tones at , 3, 10, and 20 kHz. TTS onset occurred at mean sound exposure level of 195 dB rms (195 dB SEL). To date, no studies relating TTS onset to pile driving sounds have been conducted for any cetacean species. Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) When permanent threshold shift (PTS) occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In some cases, there can be total or partial deafness, whereas in other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges. PTS consists of non-recoverable physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear and is therefore classified as Level A harassment under the MMPA. Level A harassment of marine mammals is not expected due to proposed mitigation measures and source levels, nor will it be authorized under this IHA. There is no empirical data for onset of PTS in any marine mammal, and therefore, PTS- onset must be estimated from TTS-onset measurements and from the rate of TTS growth with increasing exposure levels above the level eliciting TTS-onset. PTS is presumed to be likely if the threshold is reduced by ≥ 40 dB ( i.e. , 40 dB of TTS). Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at a received sound level 20 dB or more above that of inducing mild TTS if the animal were exposed to the strong sound for an extended period, or to a strong sound with rather rapid rise time. Due to proposed mitigation measures and source levels for the Project, NMFS does not expect that marine mammals will be exposed to levels that could elicit PTS. Non-auditory Physiological Effects Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. Due to proposed mitigation measures (e.g., mandatory shut downs) marine mammals would not be exposed to sound at or above 180dB; therefore, it is not expected that severe physiological effects from exposure to sound would be expected; however, a hormonal stress response is possible. Romano et al. (2004) demonstrated that belugas exposed to seismic water gun and (or) single pure tones (up to 201 dB rms) resembling sonar pings showed increased stress hormone levels of norepinephrine, epinephrine, and dopamine. While RLs would not be as strong as the ones in that study, a stress response would not be unexpected. Studies have also demonstrated that reactions of animals to sounds could result in physical injury. For example, it has recently been reported that stranded deep diving marine mammals displayed physical attributes similar to the bends ( e.g. , in vivo gas bubble formation) (Ferndandez et al. , 2005, 2006). Marine mammals may experience these symptoms if surfacing rapidly from deep dives in response to loud sounds. Because Knik Arm is a shallow water estuary, marine mammals found there are not considered deep divers, and due to proposed mitigation measures, non-auditory physiological impacts, other than stress, are not expected. Impacts to Beluga Whales The marine mammal species or stock that could be most affected from the Project is the beluga whale. Observation and tagging data both indicate that the northernmost parts of upper Cook Inlet, including Knik Arm, are the focus of the stock's distribution in both summer (Rugh et al. , 2000) and winter (Hobbs et al. , 2005). Because of the very restricted range of this stock, CI belugas can be assumed to be sensitive to human-induced or natural perturbations. Contaminants from a variety of sources, sound, onshore or offshore development, and construction have the potential to impact this stock or its habitat. There are no consistent observed threshold levels at which belugas, and marine mammals in general, respond to an introduced sound. Beluga responses to sound stimuli have been noted to be highly dependent upon behavioral state and motivation to remain or leave an area. Few field studies involving industrial sounds have been conducted on beluga whales. Reactions of belugas in those studies varied. For example, in Awbrey and Stewart (1983) (as summarized in Southall et al. , 2007), recordings of noise from SEDCO 708 drilling platform (non-pulse) were projected underwater at a source level of 163 dB rms. Beluga whales less than 1.5 km from the source usually reacted to onset of the noise by swimming away (RLs approximately 115.4 dB rms). In two instances groups of whales that were at least 3.5 km from the noise source when playback started continued to approach (RLs approximately 109.8 dB rms). One group approached within 300 m (RLs approximately 125.8 dB rms) before all or part turned back. The other group submerged and passed within 15m of the projector (RL approximately 145.3 dB). Richardson et al. (1990), as summarized in Southall et al. , 2007, played back drilling platform sounds (source level: 163 dB) while approximately 100 belugas were in the area of several hundred to meters to several hundred kilometers. No obvious reactions were noted; however, moderate changes in behavior for three groups swimming within 200m of the sound projector were observed. In other studies, belugas exposed to seismic airguns (multiple pulse) at RLs of 100 to 120 dB rms were determined to have had no observable reaction; however, RLs between 120 and 150 dB rms were determined to have induced temporary avoidance behavior, based on vessel-based and aerial observations (Miller et al. , 2005). TTS experiments have also documented behavioral responses by trained belugas. These responses included reluctance to return to experimental stations when exposed to watergun pulse sounds at approximately 185.3 dB rms (171dB SEL) (Finneran et al. , 2002) and behavioral changes when exposed to sounds from the explosion simulator at approximately 200 dB rms (177 dB SEL) (Finneran et al. , 2000). In a non-pulse exposure experiment ( i.e. , 1 s tones), belugas displayed altered behavior when exposed to 180 196 dB rms (180-196 dB SEL) (Schlundt et al. , 2000). While no studies have been conducted for belugas in response to pile driving, bottlenose dolphin and humpback dolphin behavior has been observed in relation to this activity. These species are also considered mid frequency odontocetes and have hearing capabilities similar to that of beluga whales. McIwen (2006) observed a temporary displacement of bottlenose dolphins during pile driving activities, although it could not be determined if this was a result of the pile driving noise itself or displacement of prey. Mhenni (1993) reported bottlenose dolphins appeared to be repelled by noise pulses obtained by striking an iron pipe held in the water. Furthermore, Wursig et al. (2000) reported Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins increased speeds of travel during pile driving and were found in lower abundance immediately after pile driving; however, no overt changes in behavior were observed. Masking of whale calls or other sounds potentially relevant to whale vital functions may occur. Masking occurs when the background noise is elevated to a level which reduces an animal's ability to detect relevant sounds. The impacts of masking are expected to be limited by the intermittent nature of the impact pile driver noise, the whales' directional hearing, and their ability to adjust vocalization amplitude, frequency, and the structured content of their signals (McIwem, 2006). Belugas have been known to increase their levels of vocalization as a function of background noise by increasing call repetition and shifting to higher frequencies (Lesage et al. , 1999; Scheifele et al. , 2005). Another adaptive method to combat masking was demonstrated in a beluga whale which reflected its sonar signal off the water surface to ensonify to an object on which it was trained to echolocate (Au et al. , 1987). Due to the low frequencies of construction noise and the ability of belugas to adapt vocally to increased background noise, it is anticipated that masking, and therefore interruption of behaviors such as feeding and communication, will be minimized. Many marine mammals, including beluga whales, perform vital functions (e.g., feeding, resting, traveling, socializing) on a diel (i.e., 24 hr) cycle. Repeated or sustained disruption of these functions is more likely to have a demonstrable impact than a single exposure (Southall et al. , 2007). However, it is possible that marine mammals exposed to repetitious construction sounds from the proposed construction activities will become habituated and tolerant after initial exposure to these sounds, as demonstrated by beluga vessel tolerance (Richardson et al. , 1995, Blackwell and Green, 2002). Habituation is found to be common in marine mammals faced with introduced sounds into their environment. For example, bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) have continued to use pathways where drilling ships are working (RLs: 131 dB) so that they can continue their eastward migration (Richardson et al. , 1991). In addition, harbor porpoise, dolphins, and seals have become habituated to acoustic harassment deterrent devices such as pingers and “seal bombs” after repeated exposure (Mate and Harvey, 1987; Cox et al. , 2001). Although the Port is a highly industrialized area supporting a large amount of ship trafic, belugas are present almost year round. It is anticipated that belugas will become increasingly habituated to the Project sounds. CI belugas have demonstrated a tolerance to ship traffic around the Port, as documented in numerous surveys conducted by LGL in this area. Animals will be exposed to greater than background noise levels from pile driving; however background sound levels in Knik Arm are already higher than most other marine and estuarine systems due to strong currents and eddies, recreational vessel traffic, and commercial shipping traffic entering and leaving the Port. During the acoustic study for this Project, carried out by URS, ambient sound levels (in absence of any vessels) were recorded between 105 and 120dB. A tug pushing a barge raised those measurements to about 135dB when it was 200m from the recording vessel. Based on the already elevated background noise around the Port and beluga's ability to compensate for masking, it can be reasonably expected that belugas will become habituated to the daily pile driving, as they have for vessel traffic. It is expected that frequency and intensity of behavioral reactions will decrease when habituation occurs. Lack of behavioral reaction indicating habituation does not necessarily mean that the animals are not being harassed or injured. For example, in Newfoundland, seafloor blasting occurred in an area utilized by foraging humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), yet the whales did not show any behavioral reaction to the blasting in terms of movement or residency times. Despite a lack of behavioral reaction, two humpbacks entangled in fishing gear were found in that area to have had experienced significant blast trauma to the temporal bones, although the seafloor blasting could not be determined to be causal (Ketten et al. , 1993). However, pile driving activities do not release the same type of, or as much energy as seafloor blasting and, due to proposed mitigation measures, marine mammals will not be exposed to such intense sounds at the Port. Therefore, injury or other physical effects will not likely occur. NMFS believes responses of beluga whales to pile driving activities would be behavioral in nature and could likely include altered headings, fast swimming, changes in dive, surfacing, respiration, and feeding patterns, and changes in vocalizations. However, NMFS anticipates that belugas would not alter their behavior in a way that prevents them from entering and/or transiting throughout Knik Arm. Belugas are currently known to associate with vessels emitting loud low frequency sounds around the Port. Belugas, and other marine mammals, may undergo a hormonal stress response when exposed to pile driving sounds; however, NMFS believes this stress response would be short term and not lead to any long-term effects Furthermore, NMFS does not anticipate that more serious effects ( e.g. , neurological effects, organ/tissue damage) would occur. Due to proposed mitigation measures, marine mammals would not be exposed to high energy sounds, thereby minimizing physiological impairments. There is no evidence of injuries occurring in marine mammals exposed to sound from pile driving and there have been no direct studies of the potential for pile driving to elicit any of those effects. Impacts to Other Marine Mammals Harbor seals, harbor porpoise, and killer whales could also potentially be impacted from the Project. Hauled out harbor seals may flush into the water from in-air noise, disturbing their resting and warming behaviors. Killer whales and harbor porpoise may be harassed by construction noise if they are in the area of the Port. Behavioral reactions by these species may be similar to belugas whales ( e.g. , change in direction, vocalizations, etc.). For example, while construction will emit low frequency sounds outside of harbor porpoise peak sensitivity rage, these animals have elicited behavioral responses to simulated wind turbine noise, also outside peak sensitivity range (max. Energy between 30-800 Hz; spectral density source levels of 128dB at 80 and 160Hz) (Koschinski et al. , 2003). During this study, animals were sighted at greater ranges during playbacks of simulated wind turbine noise and observed animals more frequently used echolocation signals. It is likely that marine mammals will be temporarily displaced or disturbed by construction activities during the terminal expansion project. Takes will be by Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) as defined in the 1994 amendments to the MMPA. No take by serious injury or death is likely, given the planned monitoring and mitigation procedures described in the application and summarized in this document. Estimated Take Monitoring of beluga presence, behavior, and group composition specifically for the Project began in 2005 and continued through 2007. Theodolite tracking and grid cell mapping were used to determine the number of belugas present within the Project footprint and within a 1 x 6 km 2 area around the Port ( i.e. , nearshore). Belugas were sighted during all months the Project will be conducting activities (April-October) but most frequently around low tide and the months of August and September, coinciding with salmon runs. These data augment those of the Hobbs et al. (2005) satellite tag study. During the 2006 monitoring year, 79 percent of all beluga groups sighted were within the project footprint, despite the average 4-km detection range. The high sighting rate of belugas within or near the Port is most likely attributed to eddy formation during the ebb tide which concentrates prey in this area. Beluga monitoring also occurred in 2004/05 for the Knik Arm Bridge Toll Authority bridge project. These data were considered when calculating take numbers; however, density of whales was less than that of nearshore areas as monitored specifically for the Port. Therefore, to be conservative, the applicant, in collaboration with NMFS, used the more conservative higher nearshore density to calculate take numbers. Based on 2005-2007 LGL monitoring data, it is calculated that, without tidally influenced mitigation, up to 21 takes of beluga whales by Level B behavioral harassment may occur (either 21 individuals harassed one time each or a lower number of individuals harassed a couple or few times each, but totaling 21) due to Port expansion for the 2008 construction year (April- October) (Table 1). These take numbers are based on the impact and vibratory pile driving isopleths of 350m (1148ft,) and 800m (2625ft.), respectively. Monthly counts of whales per hour of effort were calculated in the nearshore area (1 x 6 km2) and then divided by the area to equal a probable density of animals in any given 1 km2 per hour (rounded up). This number was then multiplied by the hours of each type of pile driving per month. Total take for the month was calculated by multiplying this number by the estimated area ensonified (around each pile-driver type) at or above the level NMFS believes will result in harassment. Because an average of 70 percent of beluga occurrences in the project footprint are estimated to occur within 2 hours of either side of low tide, takes are actually estimated to be lower due to the proposed requirement to prohibit impact pile-drivers within 2 hours on either side of low tide. However, to allow for the social dynamics of beluga whales ( e.g. , large group sizes), NMFS is proposing to authorize 34 beluga whale takes per year. This number is considered small when compared to the current population estimate of 302 individuals. Table 1.—Calculated Expected Take, Based on Nearshore Density, of Beluga Whales From Pile Driving Activities at the Port of Anchorage in 2008 Port of Anchorage Take Table- 2008 Month Impact Hours Vibratory Hours Avg. Whales/hr/km 2 nearshore* Area within 160dB Impact (350m) Expected Take (impact) Area within 120dB Vibratory (800m) Expected Take (vibratory) April 86 58 0.014 0.192 0.230 1.0048 0.809 May 60 39 0.006 0.192 0.064 1.0048 0.218 June 60 39 0.011 0.192 0.125 1.0048 0.423 July 86 58 0.004 0.192 0.066 1.0048 0.231 August 86 58 0.062 0.192 1.031 1.0048 3.633 September 86 58 0.043 0.192 0.718 1.0048 2.529 October 86 58 0.020 0.192 0.335 1.0048 1.179 Total* 550 368 8 13 The total number of authorized take is calculated by rounding up each take per month ( e.g. , a take of 0.230 animals in April is equal to 1 take). Based on the sighting rates of other marine mammals around the Port, other marine mammals would not be expected to be harassed from Project activities mathematically. However, because these species have been sighted in the area, NMFS is proposing to authorize a small number, relevant to the population size, of takes for harbor seals (20), harbor porpoise (20), and killer whales (5). Effects to Marine Mammal Habitat Beluga whales primarily use the area around the Port for traveling and foraging (LGL 2005, 2006, 2007; Port Monitoring Data, unpubl.). The primary aquatic habitat resource losses associated with the Project are the losses and degradation of intertidal and nearshore habitat, including essential fish habitat (EFH). Noise from pile driving would result in habitat degradation; however, based on the identified behavioral harassment isopleth distances, impact and vibratory pile driving sounds above marine mammal behavioral harassment levels are expected to propagate out to only 350m and 800m, respectively. Due to the already noisy characteristics of this habitat ( e.g. , currents, ships and recreational vessel presence), it is not expected that marine mammals, especially belugas, would be as greatly affected as if the ambient and background sound level was lower. It can be reasonably expected that marine mammals will continue to travel past the Port even when pile driving activities are occurring. However, it is possible they would do so further out towards the middle or west side of Knik Arm. Belugas whales' diet is primarily comprised of fish, specifically salmon. Fish habitats, including EFH, in upper Cook Inlet have not been studied comprehensively, but the studies completed to date indicate that the area immediately around the Port supports a wide diversity of marine and anadromous fish species, in particular providing migrating, rearing, and foraging habitat. The intertidal and nearshore subtidal waters of the Project area are used by juvenile and adult salmonids for refuge from the strong currents of Knik Arm, as a migration corridor for adult salmonids, and as rearing and migratory habitat for several streams that drain into Knik Arm, in upper Cook Inlet. Therefore, the elimination of this habitat and alteration of hydrology would adversely impact fish, especially juveniles and smolt taking refuge in the area to be filled; however, based on the following reasons, these changes are not likely to appreciably reduce prey availability to marine mammals, particularly belugas. The project area is located approximately 2000 feet (609.4 m) north of the mouth of Ship Creek, a stocked creek, and the proposed action would remove most of the remaining intertidal and shallow subtidal waters north of the mouth to Cairn Point. If a decrease in fish abundance occurs, this could result in decreased foraging opportunities for belugas and increased beluga energy expenditure to find prey. However, juvenile chinook salmon sampled between Cairn Point and Point Woronzof were primarily of Ship Creek hatchery origin. Juvenile salmonids are reared at the hatchery for two years prior to release at the smolt stage. Smolts released from the hatchery are ready for out migration and it is believed that the smolts reside in the Ship Creek area for a limited period before migrating elsewhere in the Knik Arm and/or Cook Inlet estuaries. Because this creek is stocked, fish would be replenished from the hatchery. Furthermore, the area directly surrounding the Port is not considered primary feeding habitat, unlike the upper reaches of Knik Arm. Design of the sheet pile wall may provide some refuge for fish which could enhance survival. The face of each sheet-pile cell is curved outward, creating a scalloped surface. Fender pile and fender-system structural components would protrude from the face of the sheet pile approximately eight feet, which would provide some limited fish refuge. In addition, the Port is evaluating various methods for constructing joint systems between OCSP cells that would provide open water areas along the face of the dock by leaving a space between the construction joints in the sheet pile wall. These breaks in the sheet pile wall profile would create alcoves with armor rock slopes of varying sizes and shapes that would provide refuge opportunities for salmonids. To offset direct habitat loss and degradation, the Port is required to carry out certain mitigation procedures as condition in the Army Corps of Engineers' Permit No. POA-2003-502-N. For all construction seasons, including 2008, these include, but are not limited to: (1) no in water fill placement or pile driving activities shall occur within a one week period following smolt releases from the Ship Creek hatchery; (2) fill material shall consist of clean fill, free of unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, asphalt, etc.), and free of toxic pollutants; and (3) the Municipality of Anchorage, in collaboration with the Corps, would execute compensatory mitigation projects that will contribute toward offsetting the functional losses attributed to the Project. These projects would support salmon populations through restoration, enhancement, creation and/or preservation (listed in order of priority) of existing nearby estuarine and associated lower riparian habitats. NMFS has determined that fish and fish habitat, including EFH, would be adversely affected both short and long-term from the current Project design plan. Short term impacts are habitat destruction and damage to fish primarily related to filling intertidal and subtidal areas, as well as noise from pile driving. Long term impacts include permanent habitat alteration and destruction and the resulting negative impacts on fish. The degree of impact to fish populations is difficult to quantify; however, the Project will most likely decrease survival of juvenile fish emanating from Ship Creek, reducing the number of adult salmon returning to Ship Creek. However, as stated, this is a stocked creek and will be replenished. Therefore, beluga prey abundance is not expected to be significantly affected. In addition, NMFS has determined that habitat degradation from pile driving will result in only short term behavioral affects to marine mammals and not prevent belugas from transiting through the area. Effects to Subsistence Hunting Subsistence hunting and fishing are economically and culturally important for many Alaskan families and communities. Marine mammals taken by subsistent hunts include pinnipeds, cetaceans, and polar bears. In Cook Inlet, Alaskan natives have traditionally relied on the CI beluga whale for subsistence purposes. For several decades prior to the 1980s, the Native Village of Tyonek residents were the primary hunters harvesting Cook Inlet beluga whales; however, other tribes have since been active in the hunt. In Knik Arm, Tyonek natives remain primary subsistence users in the Knik Arm and may harvest beluga whales that pass through the Project footprint; however, no hunting will take place in or near the Project area. As stated, subsistence hunting as been greatly reduced to 1-2 whales per year. No belugas are expected to be injured or killed as a result of the Project, nor is distribution expected to be altered dramatically in Knik Arm. The disturbance and potential displacement of beluga whales by noise from 2008 construction activities are the principal concerns related to subsistence use. However, since all anticipated takes from implementation of the Project would be takes by harassment involving temporary changes in behavior, construction activities associated with the Project would not have an unmitigable adverse impact the availability of a marine mammal species or stock for taking for subsistence uses. Proposed Mitigation The Port, in working with NMFS, proposes the following mitigation measures for the entire Project construction (2008-2012). These measures are designed to eliminate potential for injury and reduce harassment levels to beluga whales. Sound deterrent/minimization techniques such as bubble curtains were considered for mitigation; however, due to the strong current in Knik Arm (up to 11.2ft (3.4 m)/sec) these techniques would be inefficient. The Port continues to work with contractors to develop sound attenuation minimization techniques. (1) Scheduling of construction activities during low use period of belugas around the Port Tides have been shown to be an important physical characteristic in determining beluga movement within Knik Arm. During the 2004 and 2005 monitoring years, beluga sightings varied significantly with tide height at two stations near the Port (West Crossing and Cairn Point). Whales were sighted most frequently (approximately 70%) during the period around low tide at these stations and as the tide flooded, belugas typically moved into the upper reaches of the Arm. Opportunistic sightings also support the highest beluga use near the point around low tide. Due to tidally influence habitat use around the Port, in-water impact pile driving will not occur during the 2 hours on either side of low tide (i.e., from two hours before low tide until two hours after low tide). Belugas are expected to be foraging well north of the Port during the flood and high tide. However, these northern areas are exposed during the ebb and low tide; therefore, animals move south toward Eagle Bay and the Knik Arm entrance to avoid being stranded and to feed on fish flowing out of creeks and rivers. Restricting impact pile driving during this time will reduce the number of beluga whales exposed to sounds where Level B harassment could result. (2) Establishment of safety zones and shut down requirements In October, 2007, the Port contracted an outside company to determine reliable estimates of distances for 190 (pinniped injury threshold), 180 (cetacean injury threshold), 160 (impact pile driving behavioral harassment threshold) and 120 dB (vibratory pile driving behavioral harassment threshold) isopleths from impact and vibratory pile driving. From this study, it has been preliminarily determined that these isopleths are 10, 20, 350, and 800 m, respectively. All threshold isopleths will also be verified with future sound index profiling studies and adjusted if necessary. Although the 190 and 180dB isopleths are within 20m for both types of pile driving, NMFS is proposing a conservative 200m mandatory shut down safety zone which would require the Port to shut down anytime a marine mammal enters this isopleth. Furthermore, to reduce chance of the Port reaching or exceeding authorized take, if a group of 5 or more belugas are sighted within the Level B harassment isopleths, shut down is required. If maximum authorized take is reached or exceeded for the year, any beluga entering into the harassment isopleths will trigger mandatory shut down. (3) Soft start to pile driving activities A “soft start” technique will be used at the beginning of each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before impact piling reaches full energy. The soft start requires contractors to initiate noise from vibratory hammers for 15 seconds at reduced energy followed by 1-minute waiting period. The procedure will be repeated two additional times. If an impact hammer is used, contractors will be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one minute waiting period, then two subsequent 3 strike sets (NMFS, 2003). If any marine mammal is sighted within the safety zone (200m) prior to pile-driving, or during the soft start, the contractor (or other authorized individual) will delay pile-driving until the animal has moved outside the safety zone. Furthermore, if marine mammals are sighted within a harassment zone prior to pile driving, operations will be delayed until the animals move outside the zones in order to avoid take exceedence. Piling will resume only after the marine mammal is determined to have moved outside the safety or harassment zone by a qualified observer or after 15 minutes have elapsed since the last sighting of the marine mammal within the safety zone. (4) For other in-water heavy machinery operations other than pile driving (e.g., dredging), operations will cease if a marine mammal comes within 50 m, to eliminate potential for injury from a working vessel. Marine Mammal Monitoring Monitoring for marine mammals will take place concurrent with all pile driving activities. Two contractual observers will be placed at two localities at the Port and will implement shut down/delay procedures when applicable. These observers will be construction contractors but will have no other construction related tasks while conducting monitoring. Each observer will be properly trained in marine mammal species detection, identification and distance estimation, will be equipped with binoculars, and will be located at elevated platforms to increase sightability range. Reports will include all beluga sightings (e.g., group size, location, behavior, time of day, etc) and note if shut down/delay occurred. Prior to the start of seasonal pile driving activities, the Port will require construction supervisors and crews, the marine mammal monitoring team, the acoustical monitoring team, and all project managers to attend a briefing on responsibilities of each party, defining chains of command, discussing communication procedures, providing overview of monitoring purposes, and reviewing operational procedures regarding belugas. In addition to Port monitoring, but not required by NMFS, an independent beluga monitoring team from Alaska Pacific University or LGL will be surveying for marine mammals at locations outside of the Port, most likely around Cairn Point. These observers will be monitor for belugas 8 hours per day/ 4 days per week. This study is independent of the Project but will work in collaboration with the Port to communicate any presence of belugas or other marine mammals in the area during pile driving. Acoustic Monitoring As mandated by the Army Corps of Engineers permit, a beluga monitoring team will report on the frequency at which beluga whales are present in the project footprint, characterize habitat use and behavior near the Port correlated with construction activities, sound levels and distance attenuation related to Port background noise and expansion activities, and characterize and assess the impacts of received noise on beluga behavior and movements. This will be accomplished from land based and/or vessel based, and passive acoustic monitoring. The Port will install hydrophones (or employ other effective methodologies) necessary to detect and localize passing whales and to determine the proportion of belugas missed from visual surveys. The Port will measure and evaluate construction and operationally generated noise introduced in Knik Arm from the Project. They will also develop a “Sound Index” to accurately represent noise levels associated with Port operations and construction activities, which must specifically include noise levels generated from pile driving, dockside activities, vessel traffic in the channel, dredging, and docking activities. The evaluation will characterize current baseline operational noise levels at the Port and develop an engineering report that identifies structural and operational noise reduction measures, if necessary, to minimize the baseline operational noise levels at the expanded port to the maximum extent practicable. The Port Sound Index will be combined with the beluga whale monitoring program to correlate construction and operationally generated noise exposures with beluga whale presence, absence, and any altered behavior observed during construction and operations ( i.e. , a dose-response analysis). NMFS is considering requiring reports monthly the first year of construction ( i.e. , the IHA period) to more closely examine behavioral reactions. An annual review of beluga observations and noise exposure data will also be provided to NMFS no later than 1 Feb. The annual review will also identify relevant technological advances in sound attenuation. The Port will employ practicable noise minimization measures identified in the annual reports for subsequent Port construction activities. Reporting for 2008 For the 2008 IHA term, monthly reports will be required from the Port regarding mitigation implementation, acoustic propagation measurements, and beluga monitoring. The acoustic and beluga monitoring plans are available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr . These plans may be refined by NMFS prior to issuance of the IHA. A final report will be submitted to NMFS no later than 90 days after construction activities cease for the season. Endangered Species Act A Section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required as no endangered or threatened species are expected to be within the Project area and therefore will not be affected by the proposed action. However, Cook Inlet beluga whales are a proposed species for listing under the ESA (72 FR 19854, April 20, 2007). A final decision on this listing is pending. The ESA provides some protection for species which are proposed, but not yet listed, to be threatened or endangered. Section 7(a)(4) requires an action agency to “confer” with NMFS when its actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing. Conference may result in the preparation of a conference report and opinion. The Port and the Corps have determined that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the Cook Inlet beluga, and that conference with NMFS pursuant to the ESA, was not necessary. NMFS concurs with this decision and has not recommend conference on this action. National Environmental Policy Act The Port and the Maritime Administration prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 2004, which analyzed the anticipated social, economic, and environmental effects of the Project. In 2007, the Corps prepared a similar document for its issuance of Permit POA-2003-502-N which authorizes the Port expansion project. However, NMFS has determined that additional NEPA analysis is necessary to adequately determine whether significant environmental impacts could result from issuance of the proposed IHA; therefore an EA will be prepared. The EA will be available on the NMFS website upon completion. Preliminary Determinations NMFS has preliminarily determined that the total taking by the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on the affected species and stocks of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on availability of those species or stocks of marine mammals intended for subsistence uses. Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting will ensure that Project related activities will result in the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species of marine mammals and their habitat. Furthermore, there will be no adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. The taking of marine mammals associated with Port construction is unlikely to cause injury (Level A harassment) or mortality due to proposed mitigation measures that will be in place such as the use of marine mammal observers, mandatory shut down zones, and tidally restricted pile driving. Takes are expected to be limited to Level B harassment. Expected reactions include behavioral changes such as decreased use of the action area, fleeing the area if present before construction activities begin, and altered diving, foraging, movement and vocalization patterns. Request for Comments NMFS requests comments on its proposal to issue a one-year IHA to allow the taking of marine mammals, specifically beluga whales, incidental to Project related pile driving activities for the 2008 construction season (April-October). NMFS also requests, in accordance with 50 CFR part 216 subpart I, interested persons to submit comments, suggestions, information, and suggestions concerning the request and the possible structure and content of the regulations to govern the taking for a 5-year period of Project operations. NMFS specifically solicits comments addressing (but not limited to) the following topics: details regarding the habitat use of belugas near the Port; additional or alternative proposed mitigation measures; information addressing the potential effect of repeated exposure to loud noises or other stressful stimuli on both population health and mother/calf interactions; information regarding cetacean habituation to acoustic stimuli, and information on potential habitat impacts as it relates to marine mammals. Prior to submitting comments, NMFS recommends reviewing the Port's application as that document contains information necessary to respond appropriately to this action. If NMFS proposes regulations to allow this take, the public will also be provided with a comment period within which to submit comments on the proposed rule. Dated: March 12, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5431 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG03 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Rocket Launches at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of issuance of a Letter of Authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that an 11-month letter of authorization (LOA) has been issued to the 30th Space Wing, U.S. Air Force, to take four species of seals and sea lions incidental to rocket and missile launches on Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California. DATES: Effective March 17, 2008, through February 6, 2009. ADDRESSES: The LOA and supporting documentation are available for review by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225 or by telephoning one of the contacts listed below ( FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address and at the Southwest Regional Office, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie Harrison or Candace Nachman, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, or Monica DeAngelis, NMFS, (562) 980-3232. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) directs the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “taking” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill marine mammals. Authorization may be granted for periods up to 5 years if NMFS finds, after notification and opportunity for public comment, that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. The regulations must include requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking. Regulations governing the taking of Pacific harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina richardsi ), northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ), California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ), and northern fur seals ( Callorhinus ursinus ), by harassment, incidental to missile and rocket launches, aircraft flight test operations, and helicopter operations at VAFB, were issued on February 6, 2004 (69 FR 5720), and remain in effect until February 6, 2009. For detailed information on this action, please refer to that document. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental take of marine mammals during missile and rocket launches at VAFB. This LOA is effective from March 17, 2008 through February 6, 2009, and authorizes the incidental take of the four marine mammal species listed above that may result from the launching of up to 30 space and missile vehicles and up to 20 rockets annually from VAFB, as well as from aircraft and helicopter operations. Harbor seals haul-out on several sites on VAFB, and harbor seals, California sea lions, elephant seals, and northern fur seals are found on various haul-out sites and rookeries on San Miguel Island (SMI). Currently, six space launch vehicle programs use VAFB to launch satellites into polar orbit: Delta II, Taurus, Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon, and Minotaur. Also a variety of small missiles, several types of interceptor and target vehicles, and fixed-wing aircrafts are launched from VAFB. The activities under these regulations create two types of noise: continuous (but short-duration) noise, due mostly to combustion effects of aircraft and launch vehicles, and impulsive noise, due to sonic boom effects. Launch operations are the major source of noise on the marine environment from VAFB. The operation of launch vehicle engines produces significant sound levels. The noise generated by VAFB activities will result in the incidental harassment of pinnipeds, both behaviorally and in terms of physiological (auditory) impacts. The noise and visual disturbances from space launch vehicle and missile launches and aircraft and helicopter operations may cause the animals to move towards or enter the water. Take of pinnipeds will be minimized through implementation of the following mitigation measures: (1) all aircraft and helicopter flight paths must maintain a minimum distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from recognized seal haul-outs and rookeries; (2) missile and rocket launches must, whenever possible, not be conducted during the harbor seal pupping season of March through June; (3) VAFB must avoid, whenever possible, launches which are predicted to produce a sonic boom on the Northern Channel Islands during harbor seal, elephant seal, and California sea lion pupping seasons, March through June; and (4) monitoring methods will be reviewed by NMFS if post-launch surveys determine that an injurious or lethal take of a marine mammal occurred. VAFB will also use monitoring surveys, audio-recording equipment, and time-lapse video to monitor the animals before, during, and after rocket launches, and to measure sound levels generated by the launches. Reports will be submitted to NMFS after each LOA expires, and a final comprehensive report, which will summarize all previous reports and assess cumulative impacts, will be submitted before the rule expires. Summary of Request On January 29, 2008, NMFS received a request for a LOA pursuant to the aforementioned regulations that would authorize, for a period not to exceed 1 year, take of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to rocket and missile launches at VAFB. Summary of Activity and Monitoring Under the Current LOA In compliance with the 2007 LOA, VAFB submitted an annual report on the rocket launches at VAFB. A summary of that report (ManTech SRS Technologies, 2008) follows. A total of three space vehicle launches and four launches of other vehicle types were conducted at VAFB between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007. The dates, locations, and monitoring required for the launches are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below. Table 1.—Summary of Space Vehicle Launches and Monitoring That Occurred at VAFB in 2007 Vehicle Date Time Launch Site Monitoring Conducted Delta II COSMO-1 June 7 19:34 SLC-2 North VAFB Delta II WorldView-1 Sep. 18 11:35 SLC-2 SMI Delta II COSMO-2 Dec. 8 18:31 SLC-2 None Table 2. Summary of other launches and monitoring that occurred at VAFB in 2007. Vehicle Date Time Launch Site Monitored Minuteman III GT 193-GM Feb. 7 00:15 LF-10 No Minuteman II FTX-02 Mar. 20 21:27 LF-06 Yes Minuteman II NFIRE-2A Aug. 23 01:31 LF-06 No Ground-based Interceptor FTG-03 Sep. 28 13:16 LF-23 No The Delta II COSMO-2 launch occurred outside of the harbor seal pupping season, and a sonic boom of greater than 1 lb/ft 2 (psf) was not predicted to occur at SMI as a result of the launch; therefore, no biological or acoustical monitoring was required or conducted. Similarly, the Minuteman III GT 193-GM, Minuteman II NFIRE-2A, and the Ground-based Interceptor FTG-03 launches all occurred outside of the harbor seal pupping season; therefore, no biological or acoustical monitoring was required or conducted on VAFB. In 2007, there were 12,793 tower operations and 299 range operations from the VAFB Airfield. Tower operations include all arrivals and departures from the airfield, while range operations include activities such as overflights, flight tests, etc. There were no observed impacts to pinnipeds from these activities. Also, no sea lion pups were born on VAFB in 2007. Delta II COSMO-1 Although no sonic boom greater than 1 psf was predicted at SMI, the Delta II COSMO-1 vehicle was launched during the harbor seal pupping season; therefore, monitoring was required at VAFB. No acoustic monitoring was conducted at VAFB since the noise from this vehicle has been well quantified by measurements performed for previous launches of this vehicle. Monitoring surveys at the Spur Road haul-out site in the days surrounding the launch (June 4-9) revealed between zero and 15 adult and juvenile harbor seals, with daily maximums between one and 15 seals. No pups were seen during the monitoring period. Also, no pups were seen during the monthly census conducted on June 29. A video recording during the launch showed that only low numbers or no seals were generally present at the haul-out site in the morning, with numbers increasing in the early afternoon. No seals were present at the time of the launch. There was no evidence of injury, mortality, or abnormal behavior in any harbor seals at VAFB as a result of this launch. Delta II WorldView-1 The Delta II WorldView-1 launch occurred outside of the harbor seal pupping season, so no monitoring was required or conducted on VAFB. However, a sonic boom of greater than 1 psf was predicted to reach SMI, so biological and acoustical monitoring were required at SMI. Monitoring at Point Bennett, specifically Northwest Cove, on SMI began on September 15 and included monitoring prior to, during, and immediately after the launch. Immediately prior to the launch, monitors were able to view 3,563 adult and pup California sea lions. The launch vehicle was not seen or heard during the launch window, and no sonic boom was heard or recorded. There were no visible movements outside of normal behaviors during or after the launch, and animals continued to haul out and persist in high numbers immediately after the launch. There was no evidence of injury, mortality, or abnormal behavior in any of the monitored pinnipeds on SMI as a result of this launch. Minuteman II FTX-02 The Minuteman II FTX-02 was launched during harbor seal pupping season; therefore, monitoring was required at VAFB. Due to the westward launch trajectory, no sonic boom modeling or monitoring was required on SMI. Also, no acoustic recordings were required on VAFB, as noise from the Minuteman launch vehicle has been well quantified by measurements performed for previous Minutemen launches. Diurnal observations of harbor seals were conducted at the Lion's Head haul-out site between March 18 and March 23. Pre-launch counts (March 18-20) recorded between zero and six seals, and post-launch counts (March 21-23) fell within the pre-launch range, with a daily maximum of three to four seals. A follow-up survey on April 1 recorded six adult seals and one dependent pup. No pups were seen during the launch monitoring period. The highest number of seals (six) was seen on the day of the launch and prior to it, while the second highest number of seals (four) was seen on the day following the launch. The launch occurred after dark, and it was not possible to observe the seals' reactions to the launch or make a video recording of the seals' response to the launch noise. As the launch occurred at night and during a tide of 1.28 m (4.2 ft), when the Lion's Head site is mostly to completely under water, it is likely that few or no seals would have been hauled out during the launch. There was likely little or no effect on the haul-out behavior of harbor seals at Lion's Head as a reesult of this Minuteman II launch. There was no evidence of injury or mortality to any harbor seals monitored on VAFB as a result of this launch. Authorization The U.S. Air Force complied with the requirements of the 2007 LOA, and NMFS has determined that the marine mammal take resulting from the 2007 launches is within that analyzed in and anticipated by the associated regulations. Accordingly, NMFS has issued a LOA to the 30 th Space Wing, U.S. Air Force authorizing the take by harassment of marine mammals incidental to missile and rocket launches at VAFB. Issuance of this LOA is based on findings described in the preamble to the final rule (67 FR 5720, February 6, 2004) and supported by information contained in VAFB's 2007 annual report that the activities described under this LOA will result in the take of small numbers of marine mammals and will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks. The provision requiring that the activity not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected species or stock for subsistence uses does not apply for this action. Dated: March 11, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5430 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE91 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Rocket Launches from Kodiak, AK AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice; Issuance of a Letter of Authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that a 1-year Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation (AADC), to take Steller's sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus ) and Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) incidental to rocket launches from the Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC). DATES: Effective March 12, 2008, through March 11, 2009. ADDRESSES: The LOA and supporting documentation are available by writing to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, by telephoning one of the contacts listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or online 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: Howard Goldstein or Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, or Brad Smith, Alaska Regional Office, NMFS, (907) 271-3023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) directs the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to allow, on request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “taking” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill marine mammals. Authorization may be granted for periods up to 5 years if NMFS finds, after notification and opportunity for public comment, that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. The regulations must include requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking. Regulations governing the taking of Steller's sea lions (SSLs) and harbor seals, by harassment, incidental to rocket launches at KLC, became effective on February 27, 2006 (71 FR 4297), and remain in effect until February 28, 2011. For detailed information on this action, please refer to that document. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental taking of marine mammals during rocket launches at KLC. Summary of Request NMFS received a request for an LOA pursuant to the aforementioned regulations that would re-authorize, for a period not to exceed 1 year, take of marine mammals incidental to rocket launches at KLC. Summary of Activity and Monitoring Under the Current LOA In compliance with the 2007 LOA, AADC submitted an annual report on the rocket launches at KLC. A summary of that report (R&M Consultants, 2008) follows. FTG-03 Mission Two launches were conducted at KLC between March 12, 2007, and March 11, 2008. The first was a monitored launch of a Flight Test Ground-based Interceptor-03 (FTG-03) target missile on May 25, 2007 at 06:00:00 hr ADT. Aerial surveys to document abundance of SSLs and harbor seals in the primary survey area (6-mile radius of the KLC launch pads) were flown using single-engine fixed-wing aircraft 2 days prior to (May 23), and 2 and 3 days (May 27 and 28) post launch. On May 24-26, 2007, three aerial surveys were canceled due to low ceilings and heavy fog. Poor weather conditions prevented the deployment of video and sound level monitoring equipment on the north side of Ugak Island, 4.2 miles (6.8 km) from the launch site, but a sound level meter was deployed on Narrow Cape, 0.9 miles (1.4 km) from the launch site. Sound level monitoring equipment at Narrow Cape registered noise above general ambient levels at 06:00:05 hr ADT for one minute eleven seconds. Noise levels peaked at 125.5 dBC. No SSLs were observed at the traditional haul out sites at the north end or east side of Ugak Island during the aerial surveys conducted before and after the launch; therefore, no focused video monitoring was conducted at those sites. During the pre-launch aerial survey on May 23, 2007, 136 harbor seals were observed hauled out in the primary study area. Post launch surveys revealed 402 seals hauled out on May 27, 2007 and 224 seals on May 28, 2007. Harbor seals were counted consistently on Ugak Island, with the largest concentrations observed on the east side of Ugak Island. They were also occasionally seen at the mouth of Pasagshak Bay. Haul-out attendance within the primary survey area increased on days following the launch. Therefore, NMFS believes that harbor seal attendance at these haul-out sites was not affected negatively by this launch. FTG-03a Mission The second monitored launch of an Interceptor FTG-03a rocket was conducted at KLC on September 28, 2007 at 12:00:00 hr ADT. Aerial surveys to document abundance of SSLs and harbor seals were flown on all 3 days prior to, immediately after, and on 3 days post launch. Video monitoring equipment and a sound level meter were deployed on the north side of Ugak Island, 4.2 miles (6.8 km) from the launch site, and another sound level meter was deployed on Narrow cape, 0.9 miles (1.4 km) from the launch site. No SSLs were observed at the traditional haul out sites at the north end or east side of Ugak Island during the aerial surveys conducted before and after the launch. However, 2 SSLs were seen opportunistically in Pasagshak Bay prior to the monitoring surveys conducted for the launch. Sound level monitoring equipment at Narrow Cape, which was placed in the same location as previous launches, registered noise above ambient levels at 12:00:05 hr ADT for one minute fourteen seconds, and at Ugak Island registered noise above ambient levels at 12:00:20 hr ADT for one minute thirty seconds. Noise levels peaked at 125.8 dBC for Narrow Cape and at 107.3 dBC for Ugak Island. Since no SSLs were present at the traditional haul out sites, video monitoring for harbor seal reactions during the launch was conducted on the north side of Ugak Island. Harbor seal monitoring focused on preferred haul out sites could not be conducted due to the strong wind conditions that effected video equipment. Neither harbor seal presence or seal activity was observed during the ignition, during the peak noise levels that followed the launch, or for the remaining duration of the video monitoring (total video running time of 21 hrs 32 min). Harbor seals were observed in the largest concentrations on the east side of Ugak Island. During the pre-launch aerial surveys on September 27, 2007, 461 harbor seals were observed hauled out in the primary study area. Post launch surveys showed 0 seals hauled out on September 28, 175 seals on September 29, 686 seals on September 30, and 748 seals on October 1. Two additional pre-launch aerial surveys for monitoring purposes occurred on September 25 and 26, sighting 392 and 279 seals, respectively. Haul-out attendance increased within the primary survey area on days following the launch. Therefore, NMFS believes that harbor seal attendance at these haul-out sites was not affected negatively by this launch. In summary, no impacts to any marine mammals were detected during the launches and no pinnipeds were observed during video monitoring. There was no evidence of injury or mortality as a result of the launches and numbers of hauled out animals were similar to or higher than pre-launch levels within 1 to 2 days of the launch. Authorization Accordingly, NMFS has issued an LOA to AADC authorizing takes of marine mammals incidental to rocket launches at the KLC. Issuance of this LOA is based on findings, described in the preamble to the final rule (71 FR 4297, January 26, 2006) and supported by information contained in AADC's required 2007 annual report, that the activities described under this LOA will result in the take of small numbers of marine mammals, have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks, and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stocks for subsistence uses. Dated: March 11, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5433 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG30 U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product Draft Report 5.3 “Decision Support Experiments and Evaluations Using Seasonal to Interannual Forecasts and Observational Data” AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comments. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes this notice to announce a 45-day public comment period for the draft report titled, U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.3 “Decision support experiments and evaluations using seasonal to interannual forecasts and observational data.” This draft report is being released solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. After consideration of comments received on the draft report, a revised version along with the comments received will be published on the CCSP web site. DATES: Comments must be received by May 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: The draft Synthesis and Assessment Product: 5.3 “Decision support experiments and evaluations using seasonal to interannual forecasts and observational data.” is posted on the CCSP Web site at: www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap5-3/default.php Detailed instructions for making comments on this draft report are provided at the CCSP link. Comments must be prepared in accordance to these instructions and must be submitted to: 5.3-seasonal_DecisionSupport@usgcrp.gov FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Fabien Laurier, Climate Change Science Program Office, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250, Washington, DC 20006, Telephone: (202)419-3481. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCSP was established by the President in 2002 to coordinate and integrate scientific research on global change and climate change sponsored by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. The CCSP is charged with preparing information resources that promote climate-related discussions and decisions, including scientific synthesis and assessment analyses that support evaluation of important policy issues. Dated: March 11, 2008. William J. Brennan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs, and Acting Director, Climate Change Science Program. [FR Doc. E8-5423 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG31 U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product Draft Report 2.4 “Trends in Emissions of Ozone Depleting Substances, Ozone Layer Recovery, and Implications for Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure.” AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comments. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes this notice to announce a 45-day public comment period for the draft report titled, U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.4 “Trends in Emissions of Ozone Depleting Substances, Ozone Layer Recovery, and Implications for Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure.” This draft report is being released solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. After consideration of comments received on the draft report, a revised version along with the comments received will be published on the CCSP web site. DATES: Comments must be received by May 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: The draft Synthesis and Assessment Product: 2.4 “Trends in Emissions of Ozone Depleting Substances, Ozone Layer Recovery, and Implications for Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure.” is posted on the CCSP Web site at: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-4/default.php Detailed instructions for making comments on this draft report are provided on the CCSP link. Comments must be prepared in accordance to these instructions and must be submitted to: 2.4-ozone@usgcrp.gov FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Fabien Laurier, Climate Change Science Program Office, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250, Washington, DC 20006, Telephone: (202)419-3481. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCSP was established by the President in 2002 to coordinate and integrate scientific research on global change and climate change sponsored by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. The CCSP is charged with preparing information resources that promote climate-related discussions and decisions, including scientific synthesis and assessment analyses that support evaluation of important policy issues. Dated: March 11, 2008. William J. Brennan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs, and Acting Director, Climate Change Science Program. [FR Doc. E8-5443 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-S COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings Time and Date: 11 a.m., Wednesday April 2, 2008. Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. Status: Closed. Matters to be Considered: Risk Surveillance. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084. David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 08-1046 Filed 3-14-08; 11:45 am]