Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet in Room 6505IR, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC on Tuesday, June 29, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Wednesday, June 30, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions which may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B) and to review the May 2004 Basic (EA-1) and Pension (EA-2B) Joint Board Examinations in order to make recommendations relative thereto, including the minimum acceptable pass score. Topics for inclusion on the syllabus for the Joint Board's examination program for the November 2004 Pension (EA-2A) Examination will be discussed.

A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the portions of the meeting dealing with the discussion of questions which may appear on the Joint Board's examinations and review of the May 2004 Joint Board examinations fall within the exceptions to the open meeting requirement set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such portions be closed to public participation.

The portion of the meeting dealing with the discussion of the other topics will commence at 1 p.m. on June 30 and will continue for as long as necessary to complete the discussion, but not beyond 3 p.m. Time permitting, after the close of this discussion by Committee members, interested persons may make statements germane to this subject. Persons wishing to make oral statements must notify the Executive Director in writing prior to the meeting in order to aid in scheduling the time available and must submit the written text, or at a minimum, an outline of comments they propose to make orally. Such comments will be limited to 10 minutes in length. All other persons planning to attend the public session must also notify the Executive Director in writing to obtain building entry. Notifications of intent to make an oral statement or to attend must be faxed, no later than June 23, 2004, to 202-622-2207, Attn: Executive Director. Any interested person also may file a written statement for consideration by the Joint Board and the Committee by sending it to the Executive Director: Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, c/o Internal Revenue Service, Attn: Executive Director SE:OPR, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.

Title: Evaluation of the Environmental Intervention Handbook.

OMB Number: 0596—New.

Expiration Date of Approval: New.

Type of Request: New.

Abstract: Forest Service and university researchers will contact recipients of a handbook designed to help resource managers reduce depreciative activities. Through those contacts they will evaluate the uses of the handbook, barriers to usage, and the need for revision of the handbook or creation of supplementary materials. This will help the researchers improve their ability to provide information to natural resource managers on reducing activities like littering, vandalism, and other activities that cause damage. To gather the information, a mini-survey will be sent through the mail to all handbook recipients. Those agreeing to participate further will participate in a more in-depth survey, conducted by e-mail, telephone or mail, based on respondent preference. Follow-up telephone contacts may occur if we need to clarify responses to the in-depth survey.

The information will be collected and analyzed by a Forest Service researcher and analyst/technicians, and a researcher at a cooperating university. Both researchers are experts in applied social psychology and survey research.

1. Respondents to the mini survey will be asked about recollection of the handbook, about the role of depreciative activities in their own work settings, and about their willingness to participate in the in-depth survey. Respondents to the in-depth survey will be asked to assess the impact of depreciative activities in natural resource settings, their opinion of availability of materials to assist resource managers in addressing depreciative activities, to rate a series of aspects of the intervention handbook, and to provide some basic soiodemographic information for purposes of comparison to other respondents.

2. All recipients of the Environmental Intervention Handbook will be contacted. Responses will be voluntary and confidential.

3. Responses will be used to evaluate the application and uses of the handbook, the need for revision of the handbook, and the need for additional tools or supplementary information to be used with handbook.

Without the proposed information collection, assessment of how the Handbook was used, how well it worked, whether or not we need to revise it, and if we need to provide additional tools will not be known. This information will help the researchers supply information to natural resource managers on methods to decrease depreciative activities. The information can also be shared with other researchers who are developing methods for reducing depreciative activities.

Estimate of Annual Burden: The average annual burden estimated per respondent is 32 minutes, based on 50 respondents at 8 minutes for the mini-survey, 45 respondents at 20 minutes for the in-depth survey, and 20 respondents at 15 minutes for the follow-up.

Type of Respondents: Respondents include natural resource managers in State, Regional, and county agencies, academicians, environmental educators, consultants, and researchers.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: Fifty respondents will be contacted.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: A maximum of three responses per year will be requested.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: The annual burden on respondents that is estimated for this information collection is 26.7 hours.

Comment is Invited:

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

Title: Perceptions of Risk, Trust, Responsibility, and Management Preferences Among Fire-Prone Communities on the San Bernardino National Forest.

OMB Number: 0596-New.

Expiration Date of Approval: N/A.

Type of Request: New.

Abstract: Forest Service and university researchers will contact community residents within or adjacent to the San Bernardino National Forest. Through those contacts they will evaluate concern about fire and fire risk, knowledge about fire, values focused on fire management, trust, objectives and alternatives for fire management, personal experiences with fire, stressors associated with fire and fire risk, responsibility and accomplishments for fire management, future orientation, and sociodemographics. The results will help the researchers improve their ability to provide information to natural resource managers on public perceptions of fire and fire management. To gather the information, residents in four communities within or adjacent to the San Bernardino National Forest will be contacted through mailed correspondence, inviting their participation in a focus group study. Willing or interested parties will contact the researcher to be scheduled into one of two sessions in their community. Those agreeing to participate will be involved in a focus group discussion and will complete a self-administered survey.

The information will be collected and analyzed by a Forest Service researcher and analyst/technicians, and a researcher at a cooperating university. Both researchers are experts in applied social psychology and survey research.

1. Participants will first complete a questionnaire focused on concern about fire, knowledge about fire, values similarity with the Forest Service, trust, objectives for fire management, personal experience with fire, stressors of fire and fire risk, responsibility for risk reduction, accomplishment of risk reduction, future orientation, and sociodemographics. Then, participants will be guided through a discussion on the following topics: objectives/values and concerns in fire management, alternatives for accomplishing objectives, values/goals and trust, and information needs and interests.

2. All residents age 18 or older residing in the 4 selected communities will be invited to participate. Invitation will arrive by mail. Two sessions will be held in each community in order to accommodate as many participants as possible. Responses will be voluntary and confidential.

3. Responses will be used to evaluate the values linked to fire and fire management among forest community residents, their personal experiences with fire and how they have addressed fire risk, perceived responsibility and accomplishments in addressing fire risk, and personal characteristics that might influence these responses. The information should shed light on residents' perceptions and expectations for fire management and on the role of fire risk and how they address it in their lives. Results will be provided to resource managers on the forest who can use the information to help them determine the role of public opinion in selection of fire management strategies (long- and short-term) as well as in forming information that can be provided to various publics about fire and fire management.

Without the proposed information collection managers will have to rely on the scant information available on public views regarding fire and fire management, and the anecdotal information collected through their direct experiences with publics regarding impacts of fire and fire risk. This information will help the researchers supply information to natural resource managers and can also be shared with other researchers who are focusing their own work on natural resource management values and objectives, as well as fire management specifically.

Estimate of Annual Burden: The average annual burden estimated per respondent is 120 minutes, and with an estimated 50 participants from each of 4 communities, the annual burden is 400 hours. An additional 66 hours is added to the burden for scheduling of participants into sessions. Total is 466 hours.

Type of Respondents: Respondents will be community residents residing within the selected locations within or adjacent to the San Bernardino National Forest.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: Two hundred participants are expected in the focus group and survey portions of the study. As many as 800 individuals may be involved in the contacts for scheduling and invitation purposes.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: A maximum of two responses per year per respondent are expected. One for the scheduling into a session and one for participation.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: The annual burden on respondents that is estimated for this information collection is 466 hours.

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

Purpose and Need for Action

The Fishlake National Forest Supervisor has determined that there is a need to improve management and enforcement of off-highway vehicle travel policy on the Forest. This need includes three fundamental management considerations.

1. The need to better accommodate current motorized use and to address future growth. There has been rapid growth in OHV use that was not anticipated when the 1986 Fishlake Forest Plan was written. Use on the managed Paiute and Great Western Trail systems alone has increased roughly 172 percent between 1995 and 2003. Similarly, OHV registrations in Utah have increased 142 percent from 1998 to 2003. Most of these vehicles in turn are used on public lands. The Forest travel plan map currently allows unrestricted motorized access seasonally or yearlong on 62 percent of the Fishlake National Forest System lands. This is no longer a desirable or sustainable management option given the existing number of users and expected growth.

2. The need to have a travel plan that is simple to understand and implement, and consistent with other Forests and land management agencies.

The model used for the existing travel plan relies on “open unless signed or mapped closed” designations that are complicated to interpret and as a result are difficult to enforce. The lack of simple and consistent travel policies among other Forests and land management agencies is confusing for the public and inhibits cooperative law enforcement.

3. The need to reduce the potential for OHV conflicts and impacts to other resource uses and values.

Some OHV activity is occurring in areas and on routes where motorized use is prohibited. In some open areas, networks of user-developed routes continue to appear that are creating user conflicts and resource impacts. Problem areas are not uniformly distributed throughout the Forest. Some of this use has occurred in riparian areas and on highly erodible slopes. In other areas use is very light and little or no effects from motorized, wheeled cross-country travel are evident. Types of impacts occurring in some cases include the introduction and spread of noxious weeds, trampling and compaction of soils and rare plants, rutting of wetlands, disturbance and displacement of wildlife and livestock, damage to cultural resources, and impacts to water quality, riparian and fisheries habitats. The major motorized impacts are occurring during hunting season, from spring antler shed gathering, in play areas next to communities, and around popular dispersed camping areas.

The Forest Service and public have a need for greater certainty about which roads and trails are part of the managed system of motorized and non-motorized routes. Greater certainty addresses the needs above by providing:

• Improved ability to prioritize and budget for road and trail maintenance, and to evaluate public safety hazards,

• Focus on how and where to sustain and improve motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities on the Fishlake National Forest,

• Improved ability to coordinate public access across different land ownerships,

• Improved public understanding and adherence to travel rules, thus reducing the development of user-created routes,

• Improved ability to reduce motorized route and use impacts to other resources values and Forest users.

Additional details and description of the proposed action can be found on the Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/fishlake/projects/obv.shtml. The proposed action has been developed by tentatively designating a motorized travel plan that moves towards desired conditions identified in the pre-project assessment. The proposed travel plan was compared to the existing travel plan to identify changes from current conditions. The proposed action only includes routes or areas where a change in current use or route classification is needed to create the desired travel plan. The proposed action will specify the miles of unclassified routes to be added, and the miles of classified routes to be removed from the Forest's existing motorized system. Travel by OHVs would only be allowed on routes and areas designated as open. Construction of the final proposed action is still underway, but it is anticipated that the route system will include over 2,500 miles of roads and trails on National Forest System lands. In addition, seasonal restrictions would be added or removed on some routes. The seasonal closure period would be lengthened from March 31 to April 15 with a start date of January 1. The Paiute and Great Western Trail systems would be retained. Motorized cross-country travel would be prohibited except as specified for direct access to and from dispersed camping, firewood gathering, emergency fire suppression, search and rescue, law enforcement, military operations, and Forest Service administrative use. Limited changes in area restrictions for over snow travel by snowmobiles are proposed to protect critical mule deer winter ranges and Research Natural Areas. The proposed alternative designates 780 acres in three managed use areas west of Richfield, UT, and 193 acres on the Velvet Ridges near Torrey, UT where motorized cross-country travel would be permitted. None of the proposed exceptions where cross-country travel is permitted authorize resource damage by users. The proposed action also includes an implementation plan that addresses items such as: Managing the designated system, eliminating unauthorized growth of the route network, signing and implementing routes and area designations, enforcing the new motorized travel plan, involving and educating the public in access and travel management, and planning future travel management decisions.

All alternatives studied in detail must fall within the scope of the purpose and need for action and will generally tier to and comply with the Fishlake forest plan. The added restrictions on motorized cross-country travel are the only proposed amendments to the forest plan at this time.

Law requires a “no-action alternative”. The No Action alternative would maintain current allowances and restrictions for OHV use and motorized cross-country travel described in the current Fishlake forest plan and travel plan.

The Forest is expecting that the public input will generate either thematic concerns or route-specific issues that may be addressed by modifying the proposed action to create a new alternative or alternatives.

Mary Erickson, Forest Supervisor, Fishlake National Forest, 115 East 900 North, Richfield, UT 84701.

The decisions to be made in this project are:

1. Identifying rules, exceptions, and strategies for closing the Forest to motorized cross-country travel.

2. Designating the type and season of motorized use to be allowed on classified routes.

3. Designating or eliminating unclassified travelways.

• Legally, the Forest Service cannot recognize nor maintain unclassified routes. Therefore, it is proposed to either designate these travelways or eliminate them. Currently there are about 700 miles of inventoried or known roads and trails that are not officially part of the Forest travel system. These routes may have been constructed for a specific short-time purpose and were never properly closed, or some may also be the result of traffic going off-route repeatly forming an illegal road or trail. Unclassified routes mapped before completion of the route designation project may be evaluated directly in the EIS. Disposition of routes that are added to the inventory after completion of the EIS will be assessed using a screening process that will be disclosed in the EIS. The analysis for this project will provide a one-time assessment of unclassified routes that will result in either the inclusion or elimination of a given route from the Forest travel network. After the decision date, any newly created travelways will by default be designated for elimination unless a separate analysis and decision are conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Future road and trail proposals for new construction will undergo disclosure and analysis in accordance with NEPA.

The first formal opportunity to comment on the Fishlake OHV Route Designation Project is during the scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7), which begins with the issuance of this Notice of Intent. All comments, including the names, addresses and when provided, will be placed in the record and are available for public inspection. Mail comments to: Dale Deiter, Fishlake National Forest, 115 East 900 North, Richfield, UT 84701.

The Forest Service requests comments on the nature and scope of the environmental, social, and economic issues, and possible alternatives related to the development of the new travel management plan and EIS.

A series of public opportunities are scheduled to explain the proposed travel plan and route designation process to provide an opportunity for public input. Seven scoping meetings are planned.

A meeting in Salt Lake City has tentatively been scheduled for June 23, 2004 at the Salt Lake City Public Library 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Written comments will be accepted at these meetings. The Forest Service will work with tribal governments to address issues that would significantly or uniquely affect them.

Important goals for the project are to create a motorized travel plan that is simple to understand, consistent with other public land management agencies in Utah, and is enforceable. Protections for critical mule deer winter range and Threatened and Endangered plant habitats, roadless considerations, and the need to maintain motorized and nonmotorized recreational opportunities have also directed the development and design of the proposed action.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The Fishlake National Forest has received and assessed numerous comments from the 2001 OHV Events Environmental Assessment that was completed to permit the Rocky Mountain and Fillmore ATV jamborees. The Forest has also received substantial input at public meetings held for the Forest Plan revision effort and from Topical Working Groups (TwiGs) that have addressed suitability issues related to OHVs, dispersed recreation, and roadless. Through these efforts the Forest has an understanding of the broad range of perspectives on the resource issues and social values attributed to motorized recreation on the Fishlake National Forest. Consequently, site-specific comments are the most important types of information needed for this EIS. Comments about existing or proposed conditions on individual routes, desired motorized or non-motorized recreation opportunities, uses and impacts, and travel plan rules and designations are being sought. Public knowledge about existing routes that are not shown on the Forest inventory is also requested. Because the Fishlake OHV Route Designation EIS is a stand-alone document, only public comment letters received directly to this project will be formally addressed in an appendix in the FEIS.

A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the July 30, 2004 comment period and during the comment period following the draft EIS so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

On April 4, 2002, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on ARG windshields from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China , 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002). On April 7, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ARG windshields from the PRC for the period September 19, 2001 through March 31, 2003. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 68 FR 16761 (April 7, 2003). On April 30, 2003, the Department received a letter on behalf of Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (“Shenzhen CSG”) requesting an administrative review of its sales and entries of subject merchandise. In its request, Shenzhen CSG indicated that it had undergone a name change, and that it had formerly been known as Shenzhen Benxun. Shenzhen Benxun was a respondent in the original investigation of this case. The request for review did not include a request for a changed circumstance review to determine whether Shenzhen CSG was in fact a successor in interest to Shenzhen Benxun. On May 21, 2003, in response to timely requests from respondents subject to the order on ARG windshields from the PRC, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review of sales by ten respondents, including “Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd.)” of ARG windshields from the PRC for the period September 19, 2001 through March 31, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 68 FR 27781 (May 21, 2003). On June 3, 2003, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the respondents, including “Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd.)”. On July 8, 2003, the Department received a letter from “Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd.)” withdrawing its request for an administrative review of its sales and entries of subject merchandise exported to the United States and covered by the antidumping duty order on ARG windshields from the PRC. On September 8, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of partial rescission of the administrative review on ARG windshields from the PRC, which included a rescission of the administrative review of sales and entries from “Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd.)”. On December 29, 2003, the Department instructed Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) to liquidate entries from Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd. at its company-specific rate, but to liquidate entries from Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. at the PRC-wide rate because the Department never had an opportunity to determine whether Shenzhen CSG was a successor-in-interest to Shenzhen Benxun. On January 12, 2004, the Department received a letter on behalf of “Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd.)” requesting that the Department amend instructions sent to Customs that direct Customs to liquidate all of Shenzhen CSG's entries at the PRC-wide rate. Shenzhen CSG asserts that Shenzhen Benxun changed its name to Shenzhen CSG and that entries from Shenzhen CSG should be entitled to Shenzhen Benxun's cash deposit rate.

On March 8, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation of changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on ARG Windshields from the PRC to determine whether Shenzhen CSG is the successor-in-interest to Shenzhun Benxun for purposes of determining antidumping liabilities. See Notice of Initiation . On March 17, 2004, the Department issued a Successorship Questionnaire to Shenzhun Benxun. Shenzhen Benxun submitted its response to the Department's Successorship questionnaire on April 6, 2004 (“Shenzhen Benxun's Response”).

The products covered by this review are ARG windshields, and parts thereof, whether clear or tinted, whether coated or not, and whether or not they include antennas, ceramics, mirror buttons or VIN notches, and whether or not they are encapsulated. ARG windshields are laminated safety glass ( i.e. , two layers of (typically float) glass with a sheet of clear or tinted plastic in between (usually polyvinyl butyral)), which are produced and sold for use by automotive glass installation shops to replace windshields in automotive vehicles ( e.g. , passenger cars, light trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, etc .) that are cracked, broken or otherwise damaged.

ARG windshields subject to this review are currently classifiable under subheading 7007.21.10.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS). Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are laminated automotive windshields sold for use in original assembly of vehicles. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

In Shenzhen Benxun's response, Shenzhen Benxun advised the Department that the firm had legally changed its name from Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd. to Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd.

In antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) (“ Canada Brass ”). While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to be the successor to the predecessor company if the resulting operations are essentially the same as those of the predecessor company. See Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994), and Canada Brass, 57 FR 20462 . Thus, if the record evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the predecessor company, the Department may assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final Results of Changes Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999).

Our review of the evidence provided by Shenzhen Benxun indicates, preliminarily, that the change in its name has not changed the company's management, production facilities, supplier relationships, or customer base.

Shenzhen Benxun provided copies and translations of the Notification of Name Change issued by the Shenzhen City Industry and Commerce Administrative Bureau. See Shenzhen Benxun's Response at Exhibit 1. Shenzhen Benxun provided copies and translations of the business licenses of both Shenzhen CSG and Shenzhen Benxun issued by the Shenzhen City Industry and Commerce Administrative Bureau. See Shenzhen Benxun's Response at Exhibit 2. The Notification of Name Change and the business licenses establish that the Shenzhen City Industry and Commerce Administrative Bureau recognized Shenzhen Benxun's name change to Shenzhen CSG on September 29, 2002.

Shenzhen Benxun provided detailed organizational charts and lists of directors and managers both prior to and following the change of name to Shenzhen CSG. See Shenzhen Benxun's Response at Exhibit 4. These organizational charts and lists of directors and managers establish that the management and organizational structure of Shenzhen CSG is substantially the same as that of Shenzhen Benxun. Shenzhen Benxun explained that its production has not changed due to the name change. Shenzhen Benxun also noted that its key production managers remained the same both before and after the name change as an indication that the name change had no impact on the production of the company. See Shenzhen Benxun's Response at page 3. Shenzhen CSG's supplier relationships are reflective of those of Shenzhen Benxun as illustrated by the supplier lists provided. See Shenzhen Benxun's Response at Exhibit 5. Finally, Shenzhen Benxun provided the customer lists of both Shenzhen Benxun and Shenzhen CSG, which, while not identical, are sufficiently similar to show no significant change in the customer base. See Shenzhen Benxun's Response at Exhibit 6.

In sum, the evidence now presented by Shenzhen Benxun establishes that Shenzhen CSG is the successor-in-interest to Shenzhen Benxun. The change of name has resulted in minimal changes to the original corporate structure of Shenzhen Benxun as it applies to the production of subject merchandise. Shenzhen CSG's management, production facilities, supplier relationships, sales facilities and customer base are essentially unchanged from those of Shenzhen Benxun. Therefore, the record evidence demonstrates that Shenzhen CSG operates in the same manner as the predecessor company. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that Shenzhen CSG should be given the same antidumping duty treatment as Shenzhen Benxun.

The cash deposit determination from this changed circumstances review will apply to all entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy 69 FR 15297, 15298 (March 25, 2004), see also, Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom: Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews 64 FR 66880, 66881 (November 30, 1999). This deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review in which Shenzhen CSG participates.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than 25 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs may be submitted by interested parties not later than 15 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 20 days after the date of publication of this notice. All written comments shall be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. The Department will publish the final results of this changed circumstances review, including its analysis of issues raised in any written comments.

This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and section 351.221(c)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations.

On February 2, 2004, the Department published the notice of initiation of sunset review of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from China pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). 1 The Department received Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Chemical Products Corporation (“CPC”), a domestic interested party, within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's Regulations (“Sunset Regulations”). CPC claimed interested party status under Section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. producer of barium chloride. We received a complete substantive response from CPC within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(I).

We did not receive a substantive response from any interested party respondents in this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this antidumping duty order.

The order remains in effect for all Chinese manufacturers, producers, and exporters.

The merchandise covered by this order is barium chloride, a chemical compound having the formula BaCl2 or BaCl2-2H2 0, currently classifiable under item 2827.38.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS). HTS items numbers are provided for convenience and for Customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.

All issues raised in this case by CPC are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 1, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the finding were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce Building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading “June 2004.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Under section 3(18)(A), the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

On March 8, 2004, NMFS received an application from L-DEO for the taking, by harassment, of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting a seismic survey program. L-DEO plans to conduct a marine seismic survey in the Northeastern Pacific Ocean (NPO), off Oregon, during August, 2004. Up to two seismic surveys are scheduled to take place in the NPO. The main survey is planned to occur near the intersection of the Blanco Transform with the Juan de Fuca Ridge. Time permitting, a second survey may be conducted at Gorda Ridge. The main seismic survey will take place between 44° 20′ and 44° 42′ N. and between 129° 50′ and 130° 30′ W. or at least 450 km (243 nm) offshore and outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of any nation. The Gorda Ridge survey is located between 42° 20′ and 43° N. and between 126° 30′ and 127-157 km, at least 84 nm (155.6 km) offshore, but within the EEZ of the United States.

The purpose of the seismic survey is to obtain information on the structure of the oceanic crust created at the Juan de Fuca Ridge. More specifically, the survey will obtain information on the geologic nature of boundaries of the earth's crust created at the intermediate-spreading Juan de Fuca Ridge. Past studies have mapped those boundaries using manned submersibles, but they have not provided a link between geologic and seismic structure. This study will provide the seismic data to assess the geologic nature of the previously mapped areas.

The proposed seismic survey will involve one vessel, the R/V Maurice Ewing ( Ewing ). The Ewing will deploy a 10- or 12-airgun array as an energy source, with discharge volumes of 3050 in3 and 3705 in 3 , respectively. The Ewing will also deploy and retrieve 12 Ocean Bottom Seismometers (OBSs), plus tow a 6-km (3.2 nm) streamer containing hydrophones, to receive the returning acoustic signals. As the airguns are towed along the survey lines, these two systems will receive the returning acoustic signals.

A total of approximately 150 kilometers (km) (81 nautical miles (nm)) of OBS surveys using a 12-gun array (24 hours of operation) and approximately 1017 km (549 nm) of Multi-Channel Seismic (MCS) profiles using a 10-gun array (6.5 days of operation) are planned to be conducted during the main survey. These line-kilometer figures include operations associated with start up, line changes of 10 km (5 nm) for the 12-gun array and 90 km (49 nm) for the 10-gun array), equipment testing, contingency profiles, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. In the unlikely event that there are no weather or equipment delays, additional MCS profiles may be acquired at the northern end of the Gorda Ridge where it intersects the Blanco Transform. The contingency survey would consist of 220 km (119 nm) of survey lines, plus 63 km (34 nm) for turns and connecting lines, for a total of 283 km (153 nm). Water depths within the seismic survey areas are 1600-5000 m (5250-16,405 ft).

During the airgun operations, the vessel will travel at 7.4-9.3 km/hr (4-5 knots), and seismic pulses will be emitted at intervals of 60-90 sec (OBS lines) and approximately 20 sec for the Multi-Channel Seismic profiles (MCS lines). The 20-sec spacing corresponds to a shot interval of about 50 m (164 ft), while the 60-90 sec spacing corresponds to a distance of 150 m (492 ft) to 220 m (722 ft), respectively. The 60-90 sec spacing along OBS lines is to minimize reverberation from previous shot noise during OBS data acquisition, and the exact spacing will depend on water depth.

For the 10- and 12-airgun arrays, the sound pressure fields have been modeled by L-DEO in relation to distance and direction from the airguns, and in relation to depth. Predicted sound levels are depicted in Figures 6 and 7 in L-DEO's application. Empirical data concerning those sound levels have been acquired based on measurements during an acoustic verification study conducted by L-DEO in the northern Gulf of Mexico from 27 May to 3 June 2003. L-DEO's analysis of the acoustic data from that study (Tolstoy et al. , 2004) provides limited measurements in deep water, such as found at Blanco Fracture and Gorda Ridge. Those data indicate that, for deep water, L-DEO's model tends to overestimate the received sound levels at a given distance. NMFS and L-DEO, therefore, propose that the 180-dB and 190-dB (re 1 microPascal (root-mean-squared (rms)) sound pressure fields that will correspond to the proposed safety radii (see Mitigation) will be the values predicted by L-DEO's model during airgun operations in deep water, including these planned survey operations.

In addition to the operations of the airgun array, the ocean floor will be mapped continuously throughout the entire cruise with an Atlas Hydrosweep DS-2 Multibeam 15.5-kHz bathymetric sonar, and a 3.5-kHz sub-bottom profiler. Both of these sound sources are commonly operated simultaneously with the airgun array, but may, on occasion, be utilized independent of the seismic array.

The Atlas Hydrosweep is mounted on the hull of the Maurice Ewing , and it operates in three modes, depending on the water depth. There is one shallow water mode and two deep-water modes: an Omni mode and a Rotational Directional Transmission (RDT) mode. The RDT mode is normally used during deep-water operation and has a 237-dB rms source output. In the RDT mode, each “ping” consists of five successive transmissions, each ensonifying a beam that extends 2.67 degrees fore-aft and approximately 30 degrees in the cross-track direction. The five successive transmissions (segments) sweep from port to starboard with minor overlap, spanning an overall cross-track angular extent of about 140 degrees, with small (<1 millisec) gaps between the pulses for successive 30-degree segments. The total duration of the “ping” including all five successive segments, varies with water depth, but is 1 millisec in water depths less than 500 m and 10 millisec in the deepest water. For each segment, ping duration is 1/5th of these values or 2/5th for a receiver in the overlap area ensonified by two beam segments. The “ping” interval during RDT operations depends on water depth and varies from once per second in less than 500 m (1640.5 ft) water depth to once per 15 seconds in the deepest water.

The sub-bottom profiler is normally operated to provide information about the sedimentary features and the bottom topography that is simultaneously being mapped by the Hydrosweep. The energy from the sub-bottom profiler is directed downward by a 3.5 kHz transducer mounted in the hull of the Ewing . The output varies with water depth from 50 watts in shallow water to 800 watts in deep water. Pulse interval is 1 second (s) but a common mode of operation is to broadcast five pulses at 1-s intervals followed by a 5-s pause. The beamwidth is approximately 30o and is directed downward. Maximum source output is 204 dB re 1 microPa, 800 watts, while nominal source output is 200 dB re 1 microPa, 500 watts. Pulse duration will be 4, 2, or 1 ms, and the bandwith of pulses will be 1.0 kHz, 0.5 kHz, or 0.25 kHz, respectively.

Sound levels have not been measured directly for the sub-bottom profiler used by the Ewing , but Burgess and Lawson (2000) measured sounds propagating more or less horizontally from a similar unit with similar source output (205 dB re 1 microPa m). The 160 and 180 dB re 1 microPa rms radii in the horizontal direction were estimated to be, respectively, near 20 m (66 ft) and 8 m (26 ft) from the source, as measured in 13 m or 43 ft water depth. The corresponding distances for an animal in the beam below the transducer would be greater, on the order of 180 m (591 ft) and 18 m (59 ft), assuming spherical spreading.

The sub-bottom profiler on the Ewing has a stated maximum source level of 204 dB re 1 microPa. Thus the received level would be expected to decrease to 160 and 180 dB about 160 m (525 ft) and 16 m (52 ft) below the transducer, respectively, assuming spherical spreading. Corresponding distances in the horizontal plane would be lower, given the directionality of this source (30° beamwidth) and the measurements of Burgess and Lawson (2000).

Airguns function by venting high-pressure air into the water. The pressure signature of an individual airgun consists of a sharp rise and then fall in pressure, followed by several positive and negative pressure excursions caused by oscillation of the resulting air bubble. The resulting downward-directed pulse has a duration of only 10 to 20 ms, with only one strong positive and one strong negative peak pressure (Caldwell and Dragoset, 2000). Most energy emitted from airguns is at relatively low frequencies. For example, typical high-energy airgun arrays emit most energy at 10-120 Hz. However, the pulses contain some energy up to 500-1000 Hz and above (Goold and Fish, 1998).

The pulsed sounds associated with seismic exploration have higher peak levels than other industrial sounds to which whales and other marine mammals are routinely exposed. The peak-to-peak (P-P) source levels of the 10-gun array and 12-gun arrays that will be used for the Blanco Fracture project are 255 dB re 1 microPa (55 bar-m) and 257 dB dB re 1 microPa (68 bar-m), respectively. These are the nominal source levels applicable to downward propagation. The effective source level for horizontal propagation is lower.

Several important mitigating factors need to be considered when assessing airgun impacts on the marine environment: (1) Airgun arrays produce intermittent sounds, involving emission of a strong sound pulse for a small fraction of a second followed by several seconds of near silence. In contrast, some other acoustic sources produce sounds with lower peak levels, but their sounds are continuous or discontinuous but continuing for much longer durations than seismic pulses. (2) Airgun arrays are designed to transmit strong sounds downward through the seafloor, and the amount of sound transmitted in near-horizontal directions is considerably reduced. Nonetheless, they also emit sounds that travel horizontally toward non-target areas. (3) An airgun array is a distributed source, not a point source. The nominal source level is an estimate of the sound that would be measured from a theoretical point source emitting the same total energy as the airgun array. That figure is useful in calculating the expected received levels in the far field (i.e., at moderate and long distances). Because the airgun array is not a single point source, there is no one location within the near field (or anywhere else) where the received level is as high as the nominal source level.

The strengths of airgun pulses can be measured in different ways, and it is important to know which method is being used when interpreting quoted source or received levels. Geophysicists usually quote P-P levels, in bar-meters or dB re 1 microPa-m. The peak (zero-to-peak) level for the same pulse is typically about 6 dB less. In the biological literature, levels of received airgun pulses are often described based on the “average” or “root-mean-square” (rms) level over the duration of the pulse. The rms value for a given pulse is typically about 10 dB lower than the peak level, and 16 dB lower than the P-P value (Greene 1997, McCauley et al. 1998, 2000). A fourth measure that is being used more frequently is the energy level, in dB re 1 microPa 2 -s. Because the pulses are less than 1 sec in duration, the numerical value of the energy is lower than the rms pressure level, but the units are different. Because the level of a given pulse will differ substantially depending on which of these measures is being applied, it is important to be aware which measure is in use when interpreting any quoted pulse level. NMFS commonly references the rms levels when discussing levels of pulsed sounds that might harass marine mammals.

Seismic sound received at any given point will arrive via a direct path, indirect paths that include reflection from the sea surface and bottom, and often indirect paths including segments through the bottom sediments. Sounds propagating via indirect paths travel longer distances and often arrive later than sounds arriving via a direct path. These variations in travel time have the effect of lengthening the duration of the received pulse. At the source, seismic pulses are about 10 to 20 ms in duration. In comparison, the pulse duration as received at long horizontal distances can be much greater.

Another important aspect of sound propagation is that received levels of low-frequency underwater sounds diminish close to the surface because of pressure-release and interference phenomena that occur at and near the surface (Urick 1983, Richardson et al. 1995). Paired measurements of received airgun sounds at depths of 3 m (9.8 ft) vs. 9 or 18 m (29.5 or 59 ft) have shown that received levels are typically several decibels lower at 3 m (9.8. ft)(Greene and Richardson 1988). For a mammal whose auditory organs are within 0.5 or 1 m (1.6 or 3.3 ft) of the surface, the received level of the predominant low-frequency components of the airgun pulses would be further reduced.

Pulses of underwater sound from open-water seismic exploration are often detected 50 to 100 km (30 to 54 nm) from the source location (Greene and Richardson 1988, Burgess and Greene 1999). At those distances, the received levels on an approximate rms basis are low (below 120 dB re 1 microPa). However, faint seismic pulses are sometimes detectable at even greater ranges (e.g., Bowles et al. , 1994, Fox et al. , 2002). Considerably higher levels can occur at distances out to several kilometers from an operating airgun array. For the Blanco Fracture survey using 10-gun and 12-gun arrays, the distances at which seismic pulses are expected to diminish to received levels of 190 dB, 180 dB, 170 dB and 160 dB re 1 microPa rms are as follows:

Additional information is contained in the L-DEO application, especially in Appendix A.

A detailed description of the NPO in the Blanco Fracture/Gorda Ridge area and its associated marine mammals can be found in the L-DEO application and a number of documents referenced in the L-DEO application, and is not repeated here. The main Blanco Transform survey site, and the Gorda Ridge contingency survey site, are located approximately 450 and 150 km (243 and 81 nm) offshore from Oregon, respectively, over water depths of 1600 to 5000 m (5250 to 16405 ft). Based on their preference for offshore (>2000 m (6560 ft) depth) and/or slope (200-2000 m or 656-6560 ft) waters, 19 of the 39 marine mammal species known for Oregon and Washington waters are considered likely to occur near the survey areas. An additional 14 species could occur, but are unlikely to do so in the project area because they are rare or uncommon in slope and offshore waters or they generally do not occur off Oregon or Washington. While these 14 species are addressed in the L-DEO application it is unlikely that they will occur in the survey area. An additional six species are not expected in the project area because their occurrence off Oregon is limited to coastal/shallow waters (gray whale ( Eschrichtius robustus ) and sea otter ( Enhydra lutris )) or they are considered extralimital (beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), ringed seals ( Phoca hispida ), ribbon seal ( Phoca fasciata ), and hooded seal ( Cystophora cristata )). As it is unlikely that these rare, vagrant mammals would occur during the short time period of this seismic survey, these latter six species are not addressed further as they are unlikely to be impacted by seismic signals from this research operation.

The six species of marine mammals expected to be most common in the deep pelagic or slope waters of the project area include the Pacific white-sided dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ), northern right whale dolphin( Lissodelphis borealis ), Risso's dolphin ( Grampus griseus ), short-beaked common dolphin ( Delphinus delphis ), Dall's porpoise ( Phocoenoides dalli ), and northern fur seal ( Callorhinus ursinus )(Green et al. , 1992, 1993; Buchanan et al. , 2001; Carretta et al. , 2002; Barlow, 2003). The sperm whale ( Physeter macrocephalus ), pygmy sperm whale ( Kogia breviceps ), mesoplodont species (Blainville's beaked whale ( Mesoplondon densirostris ), Stejneger's beaked whale ( M. stejnegeri ), and Hubb's beaked whale ( M. carlhubbsi )), Baird's beaked whale ( Berardius bairdii ), Cuvier's beaked whale ( Ziphius cavirostris ), and northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ) are considered pelagic species but are generally uncommon in the waters near the survey area.

Of the five species of pinnipeds known to occur regularly in waters off Oregon, Washington, or northern California, only the northern fur seal and northern elephant seal are likely to be present in the pelagic waters of the proposed project area, located approximately 150-450 km (243-481 nm) offshore. The Steller sea lion ( Eumetopias jubatus ) may also occur there in small numbers. The California sea lion ( Zalophus californianus )and harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina ) occur in shallow coastal or shelf waters off Oregon and Washington (Bonnell et al. , 1992, Green et al. , 1993, Buchanan et al. , 2001), and are not expected to be seen in the proposed study area. Sea otters were translocated to shallow coastal waters off the Olympic Peninsula of Washington, but are not found in the pelagic waters of the project area off Oregon. More detailed information on these species is contained in the L-DEO application and additional information is contained in Caretta et al. , (2002) which are available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Small_Take /smalltake_info.htm#applications , and http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/ PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html , respectively.

As outlined in several previous NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, and can be categorized as follows (based on Richardson et al. 1995):

(1) The noise may be too weak to be heard at the location of the animal (i.e., lower than the prevailing ambient noise level, the hearing threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or both);

(2) The noise may be audible but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral response;

(3) The noise may elicit reactions of variable conspicuousness and variable relevance to the well being of the marine mammal; these can range from temporary alert responses to active avoidance reactions such as vacating an area at least until the noise event ceases;

(4) Upon repeated exposure, a marine mammal may exhibit diminishing responsiveness (habituation), or disturbance effects may persist; the latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in characteristics, infrequent and unpredictable in occurrence, and associated with situations that a marine mammal perceives as a threat;

(5) Any anthropogenic noise that is strong enough to be heard has the potential to reduce (mask) the ability of a marine mammal to hear natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from conspecifics, and underwater environmental sounds such as surf noise;

(6) If mammals remain in an area because it is important for feeding, breeding or some other biologically important purpose even though there is chronic exposure to noise, it is possible that there could be noise-induced physiological stress; this might in turn have negative effects on the well-being or reproduction of the animals involved; and

(7) Very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and presumably marine mammals, received sound levels must far exceed the animal's hearing threshold for there to be any temporary threshold shift (TTS). For transient sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is inversely related to the duration of the sound. Received sound levels must be even higher for there to be risk of permanent hearing impairment. In addition, intense acoustic or explosive events may cause trauma to tissues associated with organs vital for hearing, sound production, respiration and other functions. This trauma may include minor to severe hemorrhage.

The L-DEO application provides the following information on what is known about the effects on marine mammals of the types of seismic operations planned by L-DEO. The types of effects considered here are (1) masking, (2) disturbance, and (3) potential hearing impairment and other physical effects. Additional discussion on species specific effects can be found in the L-DEO application for taking marine mammals incidental to this activity.

Masking effects of pulsed sounds on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are very few specific data on this. Seismic sounds are short pulses occurring for less than 1 sec every 20 or 60-90 sec in this project. Sounds from the multibeam sonar are very short pulses, occurring for 1-10 msec once every 1 to 15 sec, depending on water depth. (During operations in deep water, the duration of each pulse from the multibeam sonar as received at any one location would actually be only 1/5 th or at most 2/5 th of 1-10 msec, given the segmented nature of the pulses.) Some whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses. Their calls can be heard between the seismic pulses (Richardson et al. , 1986; McDonald et al. , 1995; Greene et al. , 1999). Although there has been one report that sperm whales cease calling when exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship (Bowles et al. , 1994), a recent study reports that sperm whales continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses (Madsen et al. , 2002). Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be negligible in the case of the smaller odontocete cetaceans, given the intermittent nature of seismic pulses and that sounds important to these species are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are airgun sounds.

Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by airgun arrays is at low frequencies, with strongest spectrum levels below 200 Hz and considerably lower spectrum levels above 1000 Hz. These frequencies are mainly used by mysticetes, but not by odontocetes or pinnipeds. An industrial sound source will reduce the effective communication or echolocation distance only if its frequency is close to that of the cetacean signal. If little or no overlap occurs between the industrial noise and the frequencies used, as in the case of many marine mammals vs. airgun sounds, communication and echolocation are not expected to be disrupted. Furthermore, the discontinuous nature of seismic pulses makes significant masking effects unlikely even for mysticetes.

A few cetaceans are known to increase the source levels of their calls in the presence of elevated sound levels, or possibly to shift their peak frequencies in response to strong sound signals (Dahlheim, 1987; Au, 1993; Lesage et al. , 1999; Terhune, 1999; as reviewed in Richardson et al. , 1995). These studies involved exposure to other types of anthropogenic sounds, not seismic pulses, and it is not known whether these types of responses ever occur upon exposure to seismic sounds. If so, these adaptations, along with directional hearing and preadaptation to tolerate some masking by natural sounds (Richardson et al. , 1995), would all reduce the importance of masking.

Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous dramatic changes in activities, and displacement. However, there are difficulties in defining which marine mammals should be counted as “taken by harassment”. For many species and situations, scientists do not have detailed information about their reactions to noise, including reactions to seismic (and sonar) pulses. Behavioral reactions of marine mammals to sound are difficult to predict. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors. If a marine mammal does react to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change may not rise to the level of disruption of a behavioral pattern. However, if a sound source would displace marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, such a disturbance would constitute Level B harassment. Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of noise on marine mammals, scientists often resort to estimating how many mammals may be present within a particular distance of industrial activities or exposed to a particular level of industrial sound. This likely overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that are affected in some biologically important manner. The sound criteria used to estimate how many marine mammals might be harassed behaviorally by the seismic survey are based on behavioral observations during studies of several species. However, information is lacking for many species.

Temporary or permanent hearing impairment is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very strong sounds, but there has been no specific documentation of this for marine mammals exposed to airgun pulses. Current NMFS policy regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-level sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive sounds ≥180 and 190 dB re 1 microPa (rms), respectively (NMFS 2000). Those criteria have been used in defining the safety (shut down) radii for seismic surveys. However, those criteria were established before there were any data on the minimum received levels of sounds necessary to cause auditory impairment in marine mammals. As discussed in the L-DEO application and summarized here,

1. The 180 dB criterion for cetaceans is probably quite precautionary, i.e., lower than necessary to avoid TTS let alone permanent auditory injury, at least for delphinids.

2. The minimum sound level necessary to cause permanent hearing impairment is higher, by a variable and generally unknown amount, than the level that induces barely-detectable TTS.

3. The level associated with the onset of TTS is often considered to be a level below which there is no danger of permanent damage.

Several aspects of the planned monitoring and mitigation measures for this project are designed to detect marine mammals occurring near the airgun array (and multibeam sonar), and to avoid exposing them to sound pulses that might cause hearing impairment. In addition, many cetaceans are likely to show some avoidance of the area with ongoing seismic operations. In these cases, the avoidance responses of the animals themselves will reduce or avoid the possibility of hearing impairment.

Non-auditory physical effects may also occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in mammals close to a strong sound source include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. It is possible that some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked whales) may be especially susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to strong pulsed sounds. The following paragraphs discuss the possibility of TTS, permanent threshold shift (PTS), and non-auditory physical effects.

TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter, 1985). When an animal experiences TTS, its hearing threshold rises and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. Richardson et al. (1995) notes that the magnitude of TTS depends on the level and duration of noise exposure, among other considerations. For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the noise ends. Little 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). Given the available data, the received level of a single seismic pulse might need to be on the order of 210 dB re 1 microPa rms (approx. 221 226 dB pk pk) in order to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several seismic pulses at received levels near 200 205 dB (rms) might result in slight TTS in a small odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold is (to a first approximation) a function of the total received pulse energy (Fineran et al. , 2002). Seismic pulses with received levels of 200 205 dB or more are usually restricted to a radius of no more than 100 m (328 ft) around a seismic vessel.

There are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to induce TTS in any baleen whale. TTS thresholds for pinnipeds exposed to brief pulses (single or multiple) have not been measured, although exposures up to 183 db re 1 microPa (rms) have been shown to be insufficient to induce TTS in California sea lions (Fineran et al. (2003). However, prolonged exposures show that some pinnipeds may incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations (Kastak et al. , 1999; Ketten et al. , 2001, Au et al. , 2000).

A marine mammal within a radius of ≤100 m (≤ 328 ft) around a typical array of operating airguns might be exposed to a few seismic pulses with levels of ≥205 dB, and possibly more pulses if the mammal moved with the seismic vessel. As noted previously, most cetacean species tend to avoid operating airguns, although not all individuals do so. In addition, ramping up airgun arrays, which is standard operational protocol for L-DEO and other seismic operators, should allow cetaceans to move away from the seismic source and to avoid being exposed to the full acoustic output of the airgun array. It is unlikely that these cetaceans would be exposed to airgun pulses at a sufficiently high level for a sufficiently long period to cause more than mild TTS, given the relative movement of the vessel and the marine mammal. However, TTS would be more likely in any odontocetes that bow-ride or otherwise linger near the airguns. While bow-riding, odontocetes would be at or above the surface, and thus not exposed to strong sound pulses given the pressure-release effect at the surface. However, bow-riding animals generally dive below the surface intermittently. If they did so while bow-riding near airguns, they would be exposed to strong sound pulses, possibly repeatedly. If some cetaceans did incur TTS through exposure to airgun sounds, this would very likely be a temporary and reversible phenomenon.

Currently, NMFS believes that, whenever possible to avoid Level A harassment, cetaceans should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding 180 dB re 1 microPa (rms). The corresponding limit for pinnipeds has been set at 190 dB. The predicted 180- and 190-dB distances for the airgun arrays operated by L-DEO during this activity are summarized elsewhere in this document. These sound levels are not considered to be the levels at or above which TTS might occur. Rather, they are the received levels above which, in the view of a panel of bioacoustics specialists convened by NMFS (at a time before TTS measurements for marine mammals started to become available), one could not be certain that there would be no injurious effects, auditory or otherwise, to marine mammals. As noted here, TTS data that are now available imply that, at least for dolphins, TTS is unlikely to occur unless the dolphins are exposed to airgun pulses substantially stronger that 180 dB re 1 microPa (rms).

It has also been shown that most whales tend to avoid ships and associated seismic operations. Thus, whales will likely not be exposed to such high levels of airgun sounds. Because of the slow ship speed, any whales close to the trackline could move away before the sounds become sufficiently strong for there to be any potential for hearing impairment. Therefore, there is little potential for whales being close enough to an array to experience TTS. In addition ramping up airgun arrays, which has become standard operational protocol for many seismic operators including L-DEO, should allow cetaceans to move away from the seismic source and to avoid being exposed to the full acoustic output of the airgun array.

When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In some cases, there can be total or partial deafness, while in other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges. Physical damage to a mammal's hearing apparatus can occur if it is exposed to sound impulses that have very high peak pressures, especially if they have very short rise times (time required for sound pulse to reach peak pressure from the baseline pressure). Such damage can result in a permanent decrease in functional sensitivity of the hearing system at some or all frequencies.

Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage in terrestrial mammals. However, very prolonged exposure to sound strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to sound levels well above the TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals (Kryter 1985). 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. The low-to-moderate levels of TTS that have been induced in captive odontocetes and pinnipeds during recent controlled studies of TTS have been confirmed to be temporary, with no measurable residual PTS (Kastak et al. , 1999; Schlundt et al. , 2000, Finneran et al. , 2002; Nachtigall et al. , 2003). In terrestrial mammals, the received sound level from a single non-impulsive sound exposure must be far above the TTS threshold for any risk of permanent hearing damage (Kryter, 1994; Richardson et al. , 1995). For impulse sounds with very rapid rise times (e.g., those associated with explosions or gunfire), a received level not greatly in excess of the TTS threshold may start to elicit PTS. Rise times for airgun pulses are rapid, but less rapid than for explosions.

Some factors that contribute to onset of PTS are as follows: (1) exposure to single very intense noises, (2) repetitive exposure to intense sounds that individually cause TTS but not PTS, and (3) recurrent ear infections or (in captive animals) exposure to certain drugs.

Cavanagh (2000) has reviewed the thresholds used to define TTS and PTS. Based on his review and SACLANT (1998), it is reasonable to assume that PTS might occur at a received sound level 20 dB or more above that which induces mild TTS. However, for PTS to occur at a received level only 20 dB above the TTS threshold, it is probable that the animal would have to be exposed to the strong sound for an extended period.

Sound impulse duration, peak amplitude, rise time, and number of pulses are the main factors thought to determine the onset and extent of PTS. Based on existing data, Ketten (1994) has noted that the criteria for differentiating the sound pressure levels that result in PTS (or TTS) are location and species-specific. PTS effects may also be influenced strongly by the health of the receiver's ear.

Given that marine mammals are unlikely to be exposed to received levels of seismic pulses that could cause TTS, it is highly unlikely that they would sustain permanent hearing impairment. If we assume that the TTS threshold for exposure to a series of seismic pulses may be on the order of 220 dB re 1 microPa (pk-pk) in odontocetes, then the PTS threshold might be about 240 dB re 1 microPa (pk-pk). In the units used by geophysicists, this is 10 bar-m. Such levels are found only in the immediate vicinity of the largest airguns (Richardson et al. , 1995: Caldwell and Dragoset, 2000). It is very unlikely that an odontocete would remain within a few meters of a large airgun for sufficiently long to incur PTS. The TTS (and thus PTS) thresholds of baleen whales and pinnipeds may be lower, and thus may extend to a somewhat greater distance. However, baleen whales generally avoid the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, so it is unlikely that a baleen whale could incur PTS from exposure to airgun pulses. Some pinnipeds do not show strong avoidance of operating airguns. However, pinnipeds are expected to be (at most) uncommon in the Blanco Fracture survey area. However, although it is unlikely that the planned seismic surveys could cause PTS in any marine mammals, caution is warranted given the limited knowledge about noise-induced hearing damage in marine mammals, particularly baleen whales.

Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosives can be killed or severely injured, and the auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten et al. , 1993; Ketten, 1995). Airgun pulses are less energetic and have slower rise times, and, while there is no documented evidence that airgun arrays can cause serious injury, death, or stranding, the association of mass strandings of beaked whales with naval exercises and, more recently, an L-DEO seismic survey has raised the possibility that beaked whales may be especially susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to strong pulsed sounds.

In March 2000, several beaked whales that had been exposed to repeated pulses from high intensity, mid-frequency military sonars stranded and died in the Providence Channels of the Bahamas Islands, and were subsequently found to have incurred cranial and ear damage (NOAA and USN 2001). Based on post-mortem analyses, it was concluded that an acoustic event caused hemorrhages in and near the auditory region of some beaked whales. These hemorrhages occurred before death. They would not necessarily have caused death or permanent hearing damage, but could have compromised hearing and navigational ability (NOAA and USN 2001). The researchers concluded that acoustic exposure caused this damage and triggered stranding, which resulted in overheating, cardiovascular collapse, and physiological shock that ultimately led to the death of the stranded beaked whales. During the event, five naval vessels used their AN/SQS-53C or -56 hull-mounted active sonars for a period of 16 hours. The sonars produced narrow (<100 Hz) bandwidth signals at center frequencies of 2.6 and 3.3 kHz (-53C), and 6.8 to 8.2 kHz (-56). The respective source levels were usually 235 and 223 dB re 1 μ Pa, but the -53C briefly operated at an unstated but substantially higher source level. The unusual bathymetry and constricted channel where the strandings occurred were conducive to channeling sound. This, and the extended operations by multiple sonars, apparently prevented escape of the animals to the open sea. In addition to the strandings, there are reports that beaked whales were no longer present in the Providence Channel region after the event, suggesting that other beaked whales either abandoned the area or perhaps died at sea (Balcomb and Claridge, 2001).

Other strandings of beaked whales associated with operation of military sonars have also been reported (e.g., Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado, 1991; Frantzis, 1998). In these cases, it was not determined whether there were noise-induced injuries to the ears or other organs. Another stranding of beaked whales (15 whales) happened on 24-25 September 2002 in the Canary Islands, where naval maneuvers were taking place. Jepson et al. (2003) concluded that cetaceans might be subject to decompression injury in some situations. If so, this might occur if the mammals ascend unusually quickly when exposed to aversive sounds. Previously, it was widely assumed that diving marine mammals are not subject to the bends or air embolism.

It is important to note that seismic pulses and mid-frequency sonar pulses are quite different. Sounds produced by the types of airgun arrays used to profile sub-sea geological structures are broadband with most of the energy below 1 kHz. Typical military mid-frequency sonars operate at frequencies of 2 to 10 kHz, generally with a relatively narrow bandwidth at any one time (though the center frequency may change over time). Because seismic and sonar sounds have considerably different characteristics and duty cycles, it is not appropriate to assume that there is a direct connection between the effects of military sonar and seismic surveys on marine mammals. However, evidence that sonar pulses can, in special circumstances, lead to hearing damage and, indirectly, mortality suggests that caution is warranted when dealing with exposure of marine mammals to any high-intensity pulsed sound.

In addition to the sonar-related strandings, there was a September, 2002 stranding of two Cuviers beaked whales in the Gulf of California (Mexico) when a seismic survey by the Ewing was underway in the general area (Malakoff, 2002). The airgun array in use during that project was the Ewing 's 20-gun 8490-in 3 array. This might be a first indication that seismic surveys can have effects, at least on beaked whales, similar to the suspected effects of naval sonars. However, the evidence linking the Gulf of California strandings to the seismic surveys is inconclusive, and to this date is not based on any physical evidence (Hogarth, 2002; Yoder, 2002). The ship was also operating its multi-beam bathymetric sonar at the same time but this sonar had much less potential than these naval sonars to affect beaked whales. Although the link between the Gulf of California strandings and the seismic (plus multi-beam sonar) survey is inconclusive, this plus the various incidents involving beaked whale strandings associated with naval exercises suggests a need for caution in conducting seismic surveys in areas occupied by beaked whales.

Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that might theoretically occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound might include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. There is no evidence that any of these effects occur in marine mammals exposed to sound from airgun arrays. However, there have been no direct studies of the potential for airgun pulses to elicit any of these effects. If any such effects do occur, they would probably be limited to unusual situations when animals might be exposed at close range for unusually long periods.

Long-term exposure to anthropogenic noise may have the potential to cause physiological stress that could affect the health of individual animals or their reproductive potential, which could theoretically cause effects at the population level (Gisner (ed.), 1999). However, there is essentially no information about the occurrence of noise-induced stress in marine mammals. Also, it is doubtful that any single marine mammal would be exposed to strong seismic sounds for sufficiently long that significant physiological stress would develop. This is particularly so in the case of broad-scale seismic surveys where the tracklines are generally not as closely spaced as in many industry seismic surveys.

Gas-filled structures in marine animals have an inherent fundamental resonance frequency. If stimulated at this frequency, the ensuing resonance could cause damage to the animal. There may also be a possibility that high sound levels could cause bubble formation in th blood of diving mammals that in turn could cause an air embolism, tissue separation, and high, localized pressure in nervous tissue (Gisner [ed], 1999, Houser et al. , 2001). In 2002, NMFS held a workshop (Gentry [ed.], 2002) to discuss whether the stranding of beaked whales in the Bahamas in 2000 might have been related to air cavity resonance or bubble formation in tissues caused by exposure to noise from naval sonar. A panel of experts concluded that resonance in air-filled structures was not likely to have caused this stranding. Among other reasons, the air spaces in marine mammals are too large to be susceptible to resonant frequencies emitted by mid- or low-frequency sonar; lung tissue damage has not been observed in any mass, multi-species stranding of beaked whales; and the duration of sonar pings is likely too short to induce vibrations that could damage tissues (Gentry (ed.) 2002). Opinions were less conclusive about the possible role of gas (nitrogen) bubble formation/growth in the Bahamas stranding of beaked whales. Workshop participants did not rule out the possibility that bubble formation/growth played a role in the stranding and participants acknowledged that more research is needed in this area. The only available information on acoustically-mediated bubble growth in marine mammals is modeling that assumes prolonged exposure to sound.

In summary, little is known about the potential for seismic survey sounds to cause either auditory impairment or other non-auditory physical effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all, would be limited to short distances from the sound source. However, the available data do not allow for meaningful quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be affected in these ways. Marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance of seismic vessels, including most baleen whales, some odontocetes, and some pinnipeds, are unlikely to incur auditory impairment or other physical effects.

A multi-beam bathymetric sonar (Atlas Hydrosweep DS-2, 15.5-kHz) and a sub-bottom profiler will be operated from the source vessel during much of the planned survey. Details about these sonars were provided previously in this document.

Navy sonars that have been linked to avoidance reactions and stranding of cetaceans generally (1) are more powerful than the Atlas Hydrosweep, (2) have a longer pulse duration, and (3) are directed close to horizontally (vs. downward for the Hydrosweep). The area of possible influence of the Hydrosweep is much smaller - a narrow band below the source vessel. For the Hydrosweep there is no horizontal propagation as these signals project at an angle of approximately 45 degrees from the ship. For the deep-water mode, under the ship the 160- and 180-dB zones are estimated to be 3200 m (10500 ft) and 610 m (2000 ft), respectively. However, the beam width of the Hydrosweep signal is only 2.67 degrees fore and aft of the vessel, meaning that a marine mammal diving could receive at most 1-2 signals from the Hydrosweep and a marine mammal on the surface would be unaffected. Marine mammals that do encounter the Hydrosweep at close range are unlikely to be subjected to repeated pulses because of the narrow fore-aft width of the beam, and will receive only limited amounts of pulse energy because of the short pulses and vessel speed. Therefore, as harassment or injury from pulsed sound is a function of total energy received, the actual harassment or injury threshold for Hydrosweep signals (approximately 10 ms) such sounds would be at a much higher dB level than that for longer duration pulses such as seismic signals. As a result, NMFS believes that marine mammals are unlikely to be harassed or injured from the multibeam sonar.

Marine mammal communications will be not masked appreciably by the multibeam sonar signals or the sub-bottom profiler given the low duty cycle and directionality of the sonars and the brief period when an individual mammal is likely to be within its beam. Furthermore, in the case of baleen whales, the sonar signals do not overlap with the predominant frequencies in the calls, which would avoid significant masking.

Behavioral reactions of free-ranging marine mammals to military and other sonars appear to vary by species and circumstance. Observed reactions have included silencing and dispersal by sperm whales (Watkins et al. , 1985), increased vocalizations and no dispersal by pilot whales (Rendell and Gordon, 1999), and the previously-mentioned beachings by beaked whales. Also, Navy personnel have described observations of dolphins bow-riding adjacent to bow-mounted mid-frequency sonars during sonar transmissions. However, all of these observations are of limited relevance to the present situation. Pulse durations from these sonars were much longer than those of the L-DEO multibeam sonar, and a given mammal would have received many pulses from the naval sonars. During L-DEO's operations, the individual pulses will be very short, and a given mammal would not receive many of the downward-directed pulses as the vessel passes by.

Captive bottlenose dolphins and a white whale exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to 1-sec pulsed sounds at frequencies similar to those that will be emitted by the multi-beam sonar used by L-DEO and to shorter broadband pulsed signals. Behavioral changes typically involved what appeared to be deliberate attempts to avoid the sound exposure (Schlundt et al. , 2000; Finneran et al. , 2002). The relevance of these data to free-ranging odontocetes is uncertain and in any case the test sounds were quite different in either duration or bandwidth as compared to those from a bathymetric sonar.

L-DEO and NMFS are not aware of any data on the reactions of pinnipeds to sonar sounds at frequencies similar to those of the 15.5 kHz frequency of the Ewing 's multibeam sonar. Based on observed pinniped responses to other types of pulsed sounds, and the likely brevity of exposure to the bathymetric sonar sounds, pinniped reactions are expected to be limited to startle or otherwise brief responses of no lasting consequences to the individual animals. Finally, the pulsed signals from the sub-bottom profiler are much weaker than those from the airgun array and the multibeam sonar. Therefore, behavioral responses are not expected.

Given recent stranding events that have been associated with the operation of naval sonar, there is much concern that sonar noise can cause serious impacts to marine mammals (for discussion see Effects of Seismic Surveys). It is worth noting that the multi-beam sonar proposed for use by L-DEO is quite different than sonars used for navy operations. Pulse duration of the multi-beam sonar is very short relative to the naval sonars. Also, at any given location, an individual marine mammal would be in the beam of the multi-beam sonar for much less time given the generally downward orientation of the beam and its narrow fore-aft beamwidth. (Navy sonars often use near-horizontally-directed sound.) These factors would all reduce the sound energy received from the multi-beam sonar rather drastically relative to that from the sonars used by the Navy. Therefore, hearing impairment by the multi-beam bathymetric sonar is unlikely.

Source levels of the sub-bottom profiler are much lower than those of the airguns and the multi-beam sonar. Sound levels from a sub-bottom profiler similar to the one on the Ewing were estimated to decrease to 180 dB re 1 microPa (rms) at 8 m (26 ft) horizontally from the source (Burgess and Lawson 2000), and at approximately 18 m downward from the source. Furthermore, received levels of pulsed sounds that are necessary to cause temporary or especially permanent hearing impairment in marine mammals appear to be higher than 180 dB (see earlier discussion). Thus, it is unlikely that the sub-bottom profiler produces pulse levels strong enough to cause hearing impairment or other physical injuries even in an animal that is (briefly) in a position near the source.

The sub-bottom profiler is usually operated simultaneously with other higher-power acoustic sources. Many marine mammals will move away in response to the approaching higher-power sources or the vessel itself before the mammals would be close enough for there to be any possibility of effects from the less intense sounds from the sub-bottom profiler. In the case of mammals that do not avoid the approaching vessel and its various sound sources, mitigation measures that would be applied to minimize effects of the higher-power sources would further reduce or eliminate any minor effects of the sub-bottom profiler.

Estimates of Take by Harassment for the Blanco Fracture Zone Survey

Although information contained in this document indicates that injury to marine mammals from seismic sounds potentially occurs at sound pressure levels higher than 180 and 190 dB, NMFS′ current criteria for onset of Level A harassment of cetaceans and pinnipeds from impulse sound are, respectively, 180 and 190 re 1 microPa rms. The rms level of a seismic pulse is typically about 10 dB less than its peak level (Greene, 1997; McCauley et al. , 1998, 2000a). The criterion for Level B harassment onset is 160 dB.

Given the proposed mitigation (see Mitigation later in this document), all anticipated takes involve a temporary change in behavior that may constitute Level B harassment. The proposed mitigation measures will minimize or eliminate the possibility of Level A harassment. L-DEO has calculated the “best estimates” for the numbers of animals that could be taken by level B harassment during the proposed Blanco Fracture seismic survey using data on marine mammal density and abundance from marine mammal surveys in the region, and estimates of the size of the affected area, as shown in the predicted RMS radii table (Table 1).

These estimates are based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that might be exposed to sound levels greater than 160 dB, the criterion for the onset of Level B harassment, by operations with the 10- and 12-gun array planned to be used for this project. The anticipated radius of influence of the multi-beam sonar is less than that for the airgun array, so it is assumed that any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the multi-beam sonar would already be affected by the airguns. Therefore, no additional incidental takings are included for animals that might be affected by the multi-beam sonar.

Table 2 explains the corrected density estimates as well as the best estimate of the numbers of each species that would be exposed to seismic sounds greater than 160 dB.

Strong avoidance reactions by several species of mysticetes to seismic vessels have been observed at ranges up to 6-8 km (3.2-4.3 nm) and occasionally as far as 20-30 km (10.8-16.2 nm) from the source vessel. However, reactions at the longer distances appear to be atypical of most species and situations. Furthermore, if they are encountered, the numbers of mysticetes estimated to occur within the 160-dB isopleth at the Blanco Fracture and Gorda Ridge survey sites are expected to be low. In addition, the estimated numbers presented in Table 2 are considered overestimates of actual numbers for two primary reasons. First, the number of line kilometers used to estimate the number of exposures and individuals exposed assumes that both the main and contingency surveys will be completed; this is highly unlikely given the likelihood that some inclement weather, equipment malfunction, and/or implementation of mitigative shut downs or power downs will occur. Secondly, the estimated 160-dB radii used here are probably overestimates of the actual 160-dB radii at deep water sites such as the Blanco Fracture and Gorda Ridge sites (Tolstoy et al. , 2004).

Odontocete reactions to seismic pulses, or at least the reactions of dolphins, are expected to extend to lesser distances than are those of mysticetes. Odontocete low-frequency hearing is less sensitive than that of mysticetes, and dolphins are often seen from seismic vessels. In fact, there are documented instances of dolphins approaching active seismic vessels. However, dolphins as well as some other types of odontocetes sometimes show avoidance responses and/or other changes in behavior when near operating seismic vessels.

Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be limited to avoidance of the area around the seismic operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of Level B harassment. Furthermore, the estimated numbers of animals potentially exposed to sound levels sufficient to cause appreciable disturbance are very low percentages of the population sizes in the NPO generally.

Based on the 160-dB criterion, the best estimates of the numbers of individual cetaceans that may be exposed to sounds ≥160 dB re 1 microPa (rms) represent 0 to 0.7 percent of the populations of each species in the NPO. For species listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), this includes no North Pacific right whales or sei whales; less than 0.02 percent of the NPO populations of sperm, humpback and blue whales; and 0.1 percent of the fin whale population (Table 2). In the cases of mysticetes, beaked whales, and sperm whales, these potential reactions are expected to involve no more than very small numbers (0 to 7) of individual cetaceans. Sperm and fin whales are the endangered species that are most likely to be exposed, and their NPO populations are approximately 26,053 and 8520, respectively (Ohsumi and Wada 1974, Carretta et al. 2002).

It is highly unlikely that any right whales will be exposed to seismic sounds ≥160 dB re 1 microPa (rms). This conclusion is based on the rarity of this species off Oregon/Washington and in the NPO generally (less than 100, Carretta et al. 2002), and that the remnant population of this species apparently migrates to more northerly areas during the summer. However, L-DEO has requested an authorization to expose up to two North Pacific right whales to 160 dB, given the possibility (however unlikely) of encountering one or more of this endangered species. If a right whale is sighted by the vessel-based observers, the airguns will be shut down (not just powered down) regardless of the distance of the whale from the airgun array.

Larger numbers of delphinids may be affected by the proposed main and contingency seismic studies, but the population sizes of species likely to occur in the operating area are large, and the numbers potentially affected are small relative to the population sizes. As indicated in Table 2, the best estimate of number of individual delphinids that might be exposed to sounds less than or equal to 160 dB re 1 microPa (rms) represents a small percentage of the populations of each species occurring there.

Varying estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that might be exposed to airgun sounds during the August 2004 seismic surveys off Oregon have been presented, depending on the specific exposure criteria, calculation procedures (exposures vs. individuals), and density criteria used (best vs. maximum). The requested “take authorization” for each species is based on the estimated maximum number of exposures to ≥160 dB re 1 microPa (rms). That figure likely overestimates (in most cases by a large margin) the actual number of animals that will be exposed to these sounds; the reasons for this are outlined above. Even so, the combined estimates for the main and contingency surveys are quite low percentages of the population sizes. Also, these relatively short-term exposures are unlikely to result in any long-term negative consequences for the individuals or their populations.

The many cases of apparent tolerance by cetaceans of seismic exploration, vessel traffic, and some other human activities show that co-existence is possible. Mitigation measures such as controlled speed, course alternation, look outs, non-pursuit, ramp ups, and power downs or shut downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges should further reduce short-term reactions, and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity. In all cases, the effects are expected to be short-term, with no lasting biological consequence.

In light of the type of take expected and the small percentages of affected stocks, the action is expected to have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. In addition, mitigation measures such as controlled vessel speed, course alteration, look-outs, ramp-ups, and power-downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges (see Mitigation) should further reduce short-term reactions to disturbance, and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity.

Two pinniped species, the northern fur seal and the northern elephant seal, are likely to be encountered at the survey sites, as they are associated with pelagic slope and offshore waters off Oregon. In addition, it is possible (although unlikely) that a small number of Steller sea lions, California sea lions, and/or harbor seals may also be encountered, most likely at the Gorda Ridge survey area located closer to shore in continental slope water; these three species tend to inhabit primarily coastal and shelf waters. An estimated 79 individual fur seals and 15 individual elephant seals may be exposed to airgun sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 microPa (rms). It is most likely that no California sea lions, Steller sea lions, or harbor seals will be exposed to such sounds. Similar to cetaceans, the estimated numbers of pinnipeds that may be exposed to received levels ≥160 dB are probably overestimates of the actual numbers that will be significantly affected. This action would therefore have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of pinnipeds.

For the proposed Blanco Fracture seismic survey, L-DEO will deploy a 10- or 12-airgun array as an energy source, with discharge volumes of 3050 in3 and 3705 in3, respectively. The airguns in the arrays will be spread out horizontally so the energy from the array will be directed mostly downward. The directional nature of the arrays to be used in this project is an important mitigating factor. This directionality will result in reduced sound levels at any given horizontal distance as compared with the levels expected at that distance if the source were omnidirectional with the stated nominal source level. Because the actual seismic source is a distributed sound source (10-12 airguns) rather than a single point source, the highest sound levels measurable at any location in the water will be less than the nominal source level. Also, the size of the airgun arrays (which are smaller than the 20-gun array used for some other surveys) is another important mitigation measure that will reduce the potential for effects relative to those that might occur with a larger array of airguns. This is in conformance with NMFS' encouraging seismic operators to use the lowest intensity airguns practical to accomplish research objectives. Also, that this project is proposed to occur in deep water is also important as sound levels tend to be lower in deep than in shallow waters at various distances from the airguns.

Received sound levels have been modeled by L-DEO in relation to distance and direction from the two arrays. The radii around the 10-airgun array where the received levels would be 180 dB and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) were estimated as 550 m (1805 ft) and 200 m (656 ft), respectively. For the 12-airgun array, the radii around the array where the received levels would be 180 dB and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) were estimated as 600 m (1969 ft) and 200 m (656 ft), respectively. The 180 and 190 dB shutdown criteria, applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, are specified by NMFS (2000) and, as mentioned previously in this document, are considered conservative for protecting marine mammals from potential injury.

Empirical data concerning these safety radii have been acquired based on measurements during the acoustic verification study conducted by L-DEO in the northern Gulf of Mexico from 27 May to 3 June 2003 (see 68 FR 32460, May 30, 2003). L-DEO's analysis of the acoustic data from that study (Tolstoy et al. 2004) provides limited measurements in deep water, the situation relevant here. Those data indicate that, for deep water, the model tends to overestimate the received sound levels at a given distance. Until additional data become available, it is proposed that safety radii during airgun operations in deep water, including the planned operations off Oregon, will be the values predicted by L-DEO's model. Previously, more conservative (larger) safety radii that are 1.5 times the modeled radii have been used for these surveys. However, given that these modeled radii are already conservative ( i.e. , overestimates) for deep water situations, even without the X 1.5 factor, these larger radii are not being proposed to be used during this seismic survey.

The following mitigation measures, as well as marine mammal visual monitoring (discussed later in this document), are proposed for the subject seismic surveys, provided that they do not compromise operational safety requirements: (1) Speed and course alteration; (2) power-down and shut-down procedures; (3) ramp-up procedures and (4) use of passive acoustics to detect vocalizing marine mammals. In addition, special mitigation measures will be implemented for the North Pacific right whale.

If a marine mammal is detected outside the appropriate safety radius and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter the safety radius, the vessel's speed and/or direct course will be changed if this is practical while minimizing the effects on planned science objectives. Given the presence of the streamer and airgun array behind the vessel, the turning rate of the vessel with trailing streamer and array is no more than five degrees per minute, limiting the maneuverability of the vessel during operations. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach within the safety radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the safety radius, further mitigative actions will be taken, (i.e., either further course alterations or shutdown of the airguns).

A power down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such that the radius of the 180-dB (or 190-dB) zone is decreased to the extent that marine mammals are not in the safety zone. A power down may also occur when the vessel is moving from one seismic line to another, unless the full airgun array is scheduled to be operated during line changes. During a power down, one 80 in3 airgun will continue to be operated. The continued operation of one airgun is intended to alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel in the area. In contrast, a shut down occurs when all airgun activity is suspended.

If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius but is likely to enter the safety radius, and if the vessels speed and/or course cannot be changed to avoid having the mammal enter the safety radius, the airguns will be powered down before the mammal is within the safety radius. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the safety zone when first detected, the airguns will be powered down immediately. During a power down, at least one airgun (e.g., 80 in 3 ) will be operated. If a marine mammal is detected within or near the smaller safety radius around that single airgun (Table 1), all airguns will be shut down.

Following a power down, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety zone. The animal will be considered to have cleared the safety zone if it (1) is visually observed to have left the safety zone, or (2) has not been seen within the zone for 15 min in the case of small odontocetes and pinnipeds, or (3) has not been seen within the zone for 30 min in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales.

During a power down, the operating airgun will be shut down if a marine mammal approaches within the modeled safety radius for the then-operating source, typically a single gun of 80 in3. Because no calibration measurements have been done to confirm the modeled safety radii for the single gun, conservative radii may be used (1.5 times the modeled safety radius). For an 80 in3 airgun, the predicted 180-dB distance applicable to cetaceans is 36 m (118 ft) and the x1.5 conservative radius is 54 m (177 ft). The corresponding 190-dB radius applicable to pinnipeds is 13 m (43 ft), with the x1.5 conservative radius being 20 m (66 ft). If a marine mammal is detected within or about to enter the appropriate safety radius around the small source in use during a power down, airgun operations will be entirely shut down. In addition, the airguns will be shut down if a North Pacific right whale is sighted anywhere near the vessel, even if it is located outside the safety radius, because of the rarity and sensitive status of this species. Resumption of airgun activity will follow procedures described for power-down operations.

When airgun operations commence after a certain period without airgun operations, the number of guns firing will be increased gradually, or “ramped up” (also described as a “soft start”). Operations will begin with the smallest gun in the array (80 in3). Guns will be added in sequence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5-min period over a total duration of approximately 18-20 minutes. Throughout the ramp-up procedure, the safety zone for the full 10- or 12-gun array will be maintained.

The “ramp-up” procedure will be required under the following circumstances. Under normal operational conditions (vessel speed 4 knots (7.4 km/hr)), a ramp-up would be required after a power-down or shut-down period lasting more than 4 minutes if the Ewing was towing the 10- or 12-gun array. At 4 knots, the Ewing would travel 600 m (1969 ft) during a 5-minute period. The 600-m (1969 ft) distance is the calculated 180-dB safety radius.

If the towing speed is reduced to 3 knots (5.6 km/hr) or less, as sometimes required when maneuvering in shallow water (not a factor here), it is proposed that a ramp-up would be required after a “no shooting” period lasting greater than 7 minutes. At towing speeds not exceeding 3 knots (5.6 km/hr), the source vessel would travel no more than 600 m (1969 ft) in about 7 minutes. Based on the same calculation, a ramp-up procedure would be required after a 4-minute period if the speed of the source vessel was 5 knots (9.3 km/hr).

Ramp-up will not occur if the safety radius has not been visible for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of ramp-up operations in either daylight or nighttime. If the safety radius has not been visible for that 30-minute period (e.g., during darkness or fog), ramp-up will not commence unless at least one airgun has been firing continuously during the interruption of seismic activity. That airgun will have a source level of at least 180 dB re 1 microPa m (rms). It is likely that the airgun arrays will not be ramped up from a complete shut down at night or in thick fog, because the outer part of the safety zone for those arrays will not be visible during those conditions. If one airgun has operated during a power down period, ramp up to full power will be permissible at night or in poor visibility, on the assumption that marine mammals will be alerted to the approaching seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and could move away if they choose. Ramp up of the airguns will not be initiated if a marine mammal is sighted within or near the applicable safety radii during the day or close to the vessel at night.

Comments on past proposed IHAs raised the issue of prohibiting night-time operations as mitigation. However, this is not practicable due to cost considerations. The daily cost to the Federal Government to operate vessels such as Ewing is approximately $33,000 to $35,000/day (Ljunngren, pers. comm. May 28, 2003). If the vessels were prohibited from operating during nighttime, it is possible that each trip would require an additional three to five days, or up to $175,000 more, depending on average daylight at the time of work.

Taking into consideration the additional costs of prohibiting night-time operations and the likely impact of the activity (including all mitigation and monitoring), NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation and monitoring ensures that the activity will have the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks. Marine mammals will have sufficient notice of a vessel approaching with operating seismic airguns (at least 1 hour in advance), thereby giving them an opportunity to avoid the approaching array; if ramp-up is required after an extended power-down, two marine mammal observers will be required to monitor the safety radii using night vision devices for 30 minutes before ramp-up begins and verify that no marine mammals are in or approaching the safety radii; ramp-up may not begin unless the entire safety radii are visible; and ramp-up may occur at night only if one airgun with a sound pressure level of at least 180 dB has been maintained during interruption of seismic activity. Therefore it is likely that the 10-12-airgun array will not be ramped-up from a shut-down at night.

L-DEO must have at least three visual observers and two passive acoustic system biological monitors on board the vessels, and at least two must be an experienced marine mammal observer that NMFS approves. These observers will be on duty in shifts of no longer than 4 hours.

The visual observers will monitor marine mammals and sea turtles near the seismic source vessel during all daytime airgun operations, during any nighttime start-ups of the airguns and at night, whenever daytime monitoring resulted in one or more power-down situations due to marine mammal presence. During daylight, vessel-based observers will watch for marine mammals and sea turtles near the seismic vessel during periods with shooting (including ramp-ups), and for 30 minutes prior to the planned start of airgun operations after an extended power-down or shut-down.

Use of multiple observers will increase the likelihood that marine mammals near the source vessel are detected. L-DEO bridge personnel will also assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements whenever possible (they will be given instruction on how to do so), especially during ongoing operations at night when the designated observers are on stand-by and not required to be on watch at all times.

The observer(s) will watch for marine mammals from the highest practical vantage point on the vessel, which is either the bridge or the flying bridge. On the bridge of the Maurice Ewing , the observer's eye level will be 11 m (36 ft) above sea level, allowing for good visibility within a 210 arc. If observers are stationed on the flying bridge, the eye level will be 14.4 m (47.2 ft) above sea level. The observer(s) will systematically scan the area around the vessel with Big Eyes binoculars, reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 X 50 Fujinon) and with the naked eye during the daytime. Laser range-finding binoculars (Leica L.F. 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation. The observers will be used to determine when a marine mammal or sea turtle is in or near the safety radii so that the required mitigation measures, such as course alteration and power-down or shut-down, can be implemented. If the airguns are powered or shut down, observers will maintain watch to determine when the animal is outside the safety radius.

Observers will not be on duty during ongoing seismic operations at night; bridge personnel will watch for marine mammals during this time and will call for the airguns to be powered-down if marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the safety radii. However, an observer must be on standby at night and available to assist the bridge watch if marine mammals are detected. If the airguns are ramped-up at night from a power-down situation, two marine mammal observers will monitor for marine mammals for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and during the ramp-up using night vision equipment that will be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular image intensifier or equivalent). All observer activity will be assisted by the passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) system where its use is feasible.

L-DEO will use the PAM system whenever the vessel is operating in waters deep enough for the PAM hydrophone array to be towed. Passive acoustic equipment was first used on the Ewing during the 2003 Sperm Whale Seismic Study conducted in the Gulf of Mexico and subsequently was evaluated by L-DEO to determine whether it was practical to incorporate it into future seismic research cruises. The SEAMAP system has been used successfully in L-DEO's SE Caribbean study (69 FR 24571, May 4, 2004). The SEAMAP PAM system has four hydrophones, which allow the SEAMAP system to derive the bearing toward the a vocalizing marine mammal. In order to operate the SEAMAP system, the marine mammal monitoring contingent onboard the Ewing will be increased by 2 to 3 additional biologists who will monitor the SEAMAP system. Verification of acoustic contacts will then be attempted through visual observation by the marine mammal observers. However, the PAM system by itself usually does not determine the distance that the vocalizing mammal might be from the seismic vessel. It can be used as a cue by the visual observers as to the presence of an animal and to its approximate bearing (with some ambiguity). At this time, however, it is doubtful if PAM can be used as a trigger to initiate power-down of the array. Perhaps with continued studies the relationship between a signal on a passive acoustic array and distance from the array can be determined with sufficient accuracy to be used for this purpose without complementary visual observations.

L-DEO will submit a report to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise, which is currently predicted to occur during August, 2004. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and the marine mammals that were detected. The report must provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring tasks. The report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), and estimates of the amount and nature of potential take of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways.

Under section 7 of the ESA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the agency funding L-DEO, has begun consultation on the proposed seismic survey. NMFS will also consult on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of an IHA.

The NSF has prepared an EA for the Blanco Fracture Zone oceanographic seismic surveys. NMFS is reviewing this EA and will either adopt it or prepare its own NEPA document before making a determination on the issuance of an IHA. A copy of the NSF EA for this activity is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ).

NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of conducting the seismic survey on the Blanco Fracture Zone in the NPO. will result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain species of marine mammals. This activity is expected to result in no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

For reasons stated previously in this document, this preliminary determination is supported by (1) the likelihood that, given sufficient notice through slow ship speed and ramp-up, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that it finds annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious; (2) recent research that indicates that TTS is unlikely (at least in delphinids) at until levels closer to 200-205 dB re 1 microPa are reached rather than 180 dB re 1 microPa; (3) the fact that 200-205 dB isopleths would be within 100 m (328 ft) of the vessel; and (4) the likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is close to 100 percent during daytime and remains high at night to that distance from the seismic vessel. As a result, no take by injury and/or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is very low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document.

While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small. In addition, the proposed seismic program is not expected to interfere with any subsistence hunts, since seismic operations will not take place in subsistence whaling and sealing areas and will not affect marine mammals used for subsistence purposes.

NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to L-DEO for conducting a oceanographic seismic surveys on the Blanco Fracture Zone in the NPO, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed activity would result in the harassment of small numbers of marine mammals; would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stocks; and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of species or stocks for subsistence uses.

NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments and information concerning this request (see ADDRESSES ).

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Under section 3(18)(A), the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

The term “Level A harassment” means harassment described in subparagraph (A)(i). The term “Level B harassment” means harassment described in subparagraph (A)(ii).

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

On December 8, 2003, NMFS received an application from Scripps for the taking, by harassment, of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting a seismic survey program. As presently scheduled, a seismic survey will be conducted in the Gulf of California. The Gulf of California research cruise will be in an area extending between 22o to 26.5o N and 106o to 111o W. The operations will partly take place in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Mexico.

The purpose of the seismic survey is to improve the understanding of the tectonic history of the Gulf of California, and especially of how the transition from continental rifting to seafloor spreading occurred. This includes understanding the relationship between seafloor structures in the deep water of the Gulf and structures that have been mapped on land (mostly in Baja California Sur) and in shallow coastal waters. The data will be used to test alternative tectonic models of how continental rifting and shearing during the initial separation of the Baja California peninsula from the rest of Mexico determined the present pattern of seismically active faults and volcanically-active spreading centers. The Gulf was selected for this work because it is adjacent to the field areas previously studied and because the seafloor sediment is generally thinner than further north, allowing for better resolution of seabed structure.

The seismic survey will involve one vessel, the R/V Roger Revelle (under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Navy, owner of the vessel). The Roger Revelle will deploy two airguns as an energy source, plus a single (450 m or 1,476.4 ft) towed streamer of hydrophones to receive the returning acoustic signals, that can be retrieved. The survey will take place in water depths greater than 400 m (1320 ft).

The procedures to be used for the seismic study will be similar to those used during previous seismic surveys by Scripps in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (68 FR 60916, October 24, 2003). The proposed seismic surveys will use conventional seismic methodology, with a pair of low-energy Generator-Injector (GI) airguns as the energy source and a towed hydrophone streamer as the receiver system. The energy to the airgun array is compressed air supplied by compressors on board the source vessel. During the airgun operations, the vessel will travel at 11.1 km/hr (6 knots) and seismic pulses will be emitted at intervals of 6 to 10 sec. The 6- to 10-sec spacing corresponds to a shot interval of about 18.5 to 31 m (161 to 102 ft). The GI gun that will be responsible for introducing the sound pulse into the ocean is 45 in3. A larger (105 in3) injector chamber injects air into the previously-generated GI airgun bubble to maintain its shape, and does not introduce more sound into the water. The two guns will be towed 8 m (26.2 ft) apart side by side, 21 m (68.9 ft) behind the Roger Revelle , at a depth of 2 m (6.6 ft).

For the 2 GI airguns, the sound pressure field has been modeled in relation to distance and direction from the airguns, and in relation to depth. The predicted radii from the source vessel are 54 m (177 ft) for 180 dB and 17 m (56 ft) for 190 dB.

In addition to the operation of the airgun array, a multi-beam sonar, 3.5 kHz sub-bottom profiler and passive geophysical sensors (gravimeter and magnetometer) will be operated during the seismic profiling, and continuously throughout the seismic survey cruise.

Additional information on the work proposed is contained in the proposed authorization notice (69 FR 12832, March 18, 2004), and in the application and in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for oceanographic surveys in the Gulf of California (Scripps, 2003), which are available (see ADDRESSES ).

A notice of receipt of the Scripps Gulf of California application and proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on March 18, 2004 (69 FR 12832). During the comment period, NMFS received comments from The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), the Mexican Society for Marine Mammalogy (SOMEMMA), and from several individuals.

Comment 1: The CBD believes NMFS has not demonstrated that the L-DEO project will take only small numbers of marine mammals.

Response: NMFS believes that the small numbers requirement has been satisfied. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held in NRDC v. Evans (Civil No. C-02-3805-EDL) that NMFS' regulatory definition of “small numbers” improperly conflates it with the “negligible impact” definition. Even if that is the case, NMFS has made a separate determination that the takes of the affected marine mammal species or stocks will be small. For example, the species or stock most likely to be harassed during the seismic survey is the common dolphin, with a “best estimate” of 1212 animals out of an estimated population size of 3,093,000 (Scripps, 2003). Although this absolute number may arguably not be small, it represents an estimated 0.039 percent of the affected population and is, therefore, relatively small. Marine mammals not are expected to be seriously injured or killed, and no effects on reproduction and/or survival are anticipated.

Comment 2: Noting that the surveys will take place only in waters greater than 400 m (1312 ft) deep, the CBD asserts that the Federal Register Notice for the proposed IHA does not adequately analyze the difference the depth of water has on the survey impacts to marine mammals or how the safety radii or other mitigation measures will be implemented in such waters.

Response: For the 2 GI airguns, the sound pressure field has been modeled in relation to distance and direction from the airguns, and in relation to depth. Empirical data concerning the 180-, 170- and 160-dB distances have been acquired based on measurements during the acoustic verification study conducted by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) in the northern Gulf of Mexico from 27 May to 3 June 2003 (Tolstoy et al., 2004). Although the results are limited, the data showed that radii around airguns where the received level would be 180 dB re 1 microPa (rms), the safety criterion applicable to cetaceans (NMFS, 2000), varies with water depth. Similar depth-related variation is likely in the 190-dB distances applicable to pinnipeds. For water depths between 100 m (328 ft) and 1000 m (3281 ft), these empirical measurements indicate that the model used by Scripps is conservative for protecting marine mammals at intermediate and deep water sites. Since the water depths in the area of this project are all greater than 400 m (1312 ft), NMFS believes that the safety zones are appropriate for the size of the airguns and the water depth. These safety zones will be monitored by dedicated marine mammal observers, as discussed later in this document.

In addition, the received levels of low-frequency underwater sounds diminish close to the surface (because of pressure-release and interference phenomena that occur at and near the surface (Urick, 1983; Richardson et al., 1995)). Paired measurements of received airgun sounds at depths of 3 m (9.8 ft) vs 9 m (29.5 ft) or 18 m (59 ft) have shown that received levels are typically several decibels lower at 3 m (9.8 ft) (Greene and Richardson, 1988). This characteristic provides additional protection to marine mammals while at the surface in the vicinity of the acoustic source, further indicating that the safety zones are conservative for protecting marine mammals.

Comment 3: The CBD states that there is no mention of the compounded impact of the 20-airgun array's seismic output along with the two other acoustical data acquisition systems, the sonar and sub-bottom profiler. CBD and the AWI state that despite the fact that all of these sources will be operating, the Federal Register Notice provides no estimate of take from the sonar and profiler individually or from all three sources collectively and instead, it assumes that any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the multibeam sonar would already be affected by the airguns. Therefore, no additional allowance is included for animals that might be affected by the multibeam sonar. CBD believes that this explanation does not account for times when all three sources may not be operating simultaneously or provide any discussion of the enhanced impact of multiple acoustic sources when operating together.

Response: As NMFS indicated in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA, as well as in other Federal Register notices regarding seismic surveys, the multibeam sonar has an anticipated radius of influence significantly less than that for the airgun array. NMFS further stated that marine mammals close enough to be affected by the multibeam sonar would already be affected by the airguns. Therefore, no additional allowance is included for animals that might be affected by the sonar. There is no enhanced impact of using the multibeam when operating it together with the airgun array. The sub-bottom profiler would not enhance impacts, since the radii of influence are smaller for the profiler than those of the airgun array.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. , new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: New.

Title : Final Performance Report for Preparing Tomorrow's Program To Use Technology (PT3) Grant Program.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public : Not-for-profit institutions; Businesses or other for-profit; State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses : 197.

  Burden Hours : 3,940.

Abstract : This is the final performance report for approximately 197 PT3 FY 2000, 2001, and 2003 grantees. It is required by statute, Title II, Part B, by EDGAR 75.590, and by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://www.edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2486. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at his e-mail address Joe.Schubart@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OEI-2004-001, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov./edocket.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are State, local, and tribal environmental officials, soil and water conservation districts, and fire departments.

Title: National Survey of Successful Waste Disposal Programs in Rural Areas in the United States.

Abstract: Under a USEPA grant, the Research Foundation for Health and Environmental Effects (RFHEE) will conduct a survey of household waste disposal options. In conjunction with the Rural Community Assistance Program and the National Volunteer Fire Council, RFHEE will develop a targeted survey to find successful methods of household trash disposal in rural areas besides burning, which releases toxics chemicals into the environment. The Partners will conduct telephone interviews with state officials who have trash burning bans (25 states) or who are concerned about the issue. In addition, a sample of local officials, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and local volunteer firefighters will be surveyed as well. The purpose of the survey is to find alternative, economically-feasible options for disposal. The results of the survey will be available to the public. This survey will not be used for any federal regulatory purposes. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: The survey will be shared with approximately 100 respondents and is expect to take 20 minutes to complete. Participation is strictly voluntary and will be a one time occurance. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Summary: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Panel will hold a public meeting to provide advice to the EPA on the Agency's Critical Ecosystem Assessment Model. The dates and times for the meeting are provided above.

Background: Background on the meeting described in this notice was provided in a Federal Register Notice published on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 21524-21525). The SAB Staff Office has determined that the advisory on the CrEAM will be conducted by the SAB's Ecological Processes and Effects Committee augmented with experts in ecology and the use of geographic information system technology to evaluate data and conduct landscape scale analyses. A roster of Panel members, their biosketches, and the meeting agenda will be posted on the SAB Web site prior to the meeting.

Availability of Meeting Materials: A copy of the draft agenda for the meeting that is the subject of this notice will be posted on the SAB Web site prior to the meeting. Copies of the CrEAM review document may be obtained by contacting Dr. Mary White, EPA Region V, by telephone: (312) 353-5878, or e-mail: white.mary@epa.gov.

Procedures for Providing Public Comments: It is the policy of the EPA SAB to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The SAB Staff Office expects that public statements presented at the CrEAM panel meeting will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements. Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an oral presentation at a face-to-face meeting will be limited to a total time of ten minutes (unless otherwise indicated). Interested parties should contact the DFO in writing (e-mail, fax or mail—see contact information above) by close of business June 21, 2004 in order to be placed on the public speaker list for the meeting. Speakers should bring at least 35 copies of their comments and presentation slides for distribution to the participants and public at the meeting. Written Comments: Although the SAB Staff Office accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office at least seven business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the panel for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to the DFO at the address/contact information noted above in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 95/98 format). Those providing written comments and who attend the meeting are also asked to bring 35 copies of their comments for public distribution.

Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access the public meetings listed above should contact the DFO at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

These two systems have not been updated for several years. The system entitled Personnel Background Investigation Reports (BGFRS-2) covers records contained in OPM/CENTRAL-9, which is a government-wide system maintained by the Office of Personnel Management. Accordingly, the Board's system is being removed as duplicative and unnecessary.

The Federal Reserve Bank and Branch Directors system is being amended to reflect changes in storage methods and other procedures and to include appropriate routine uses.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), a report of these amended systems of records is being filed with the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. These amendments will become effective on July 26, 2004, without further notice, unless the Board publishes a notice to the contrary in the Federal Register.

Accordingly, the system of records entitled Personnel Background Investigation Reports (BGFRS-2) is removed, and the system of records entitled Federal Reserve Bank and Branch Directors (BGFRS-14) is amended as follows.

To fill this year's vacancies I am announcing the following:

Newly appointed members are John M. Bertko, F.S.A., M.A.A.A., vice president and chief actuary, Humana Inc.; Francis J. Crosson, M.D., executive director, the Permanente Federation, LLC; Arnold Milstein, M.D., M.P.H., medical director, Pacific Business Group on Health and U.S. health care thought leader, Mercer Human Resource Consulting; and William J. Scanlon, Ph.D., health policy consultant. Reappointed members are Sheila P. Burke, M.P.A., R.N., under secretary for American museums and national programs, Smithsonian Institution; and Ralph W. Muller, chief executive officer, University of Pennsylvania Health System.

(Sec. 4022, Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, 350)

CFSAC was established on September 5, 2002, to replace the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Coordinating Committee. CFSAC was established to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on a broad range of topics including (1) the current state of knowledge and research about the epidemiology and risk factors relating to chronic fatigue syndrome, and identifying potential opportunities in these areas; (2) current and proposed diagnosis and treatment methods for chronic fatigue syndrome; and (3) development and implementation of programs to inform the public, health care professionals, and the biomedical, academic, and research communities about chronic fatigue syndrome advances.

The tentative agenda for this meeting is as follows:

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals must provide a photo ID for entry into the meeting. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Pre-registration is required for public comment by June 14, 2004. Any individual who wishes to participate in the public comment session should call the telephone number listed in the contact information to register. Public comment will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Any members of the public who wish to have printed material distributed to CFSAC members should submit materials to the Executive Secretary, CFSAC, whose contact information is listed above prior to close of business June 14, 2004.

PACHA was established by Executive Order 12963, dated June 14, 1995, as amended by Executive Order 13009, dated June 14, 1996. PACHA was established to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the President regarding programs and policies intended to (a) promote effective prevention of HIV disease, (b) advance research on HIV and AIDS, and (c) promote quality services to persons living with HIV disease and AIDS. PACHA was established to serve solely as an advisory body to the President and to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. PACHA is composed of not more than 35 members. PACHA membership is determined by the Secretary from individuals who are considered authorities with particular expertise in, or knowledge of, matters concerning HIV/AIDS.

The agenda for this meeting includes the following topics: HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment, and global HIV/AIDS issues. Time will be allotted during the meeting for public comment.

Public attendance is limited to space available and pre-registration is required for both attendance and public comment. Any individual who wishes to attend and/or comment must call (202) 690-5560 to register. Individuals must provide a government issued photo ID for entry into the meeting. Individuals who need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the registrar.

Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Public comment will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker and to time available. Written testimony, not to exceed five (5) pages, will be accepted by mail or facsimile at (202) 690-7425.

Written testimony will not be accepted after 5 p.m., Wednesday, June 23, 2004.

Proposed Project “AHRQ Grants Reporting System (GRS)”

AHRQ has identified the need to establish a systematic method for grantees to report project progress and important preliminary findings for grants funded by the Agency.

The proposed system will address the shortfalls in the current reporting process and establish a consistent and comprehensive grants reporting solution for AHRQ. Currently, AHRQ receives grants continuation applications on an annual basis from all grantees. The progress report, which represents a portion of the annual continuation application, is inadequate because it is too infrequent and does not necessarily capture the information that AHRQ requires to respond to internal and external inquiries.

The reporting system will also provide a centralized repository of grants research information that can be used to support initiatives within the Agency's research plans for the future and to support activities such as performance monitoring, budgeting, knowledge transfer as well as strategic planning.

AHRQ currently conducts quarterly conference calls with some grantees. The content, frequency, and focus of these calls vary. In some grant programs, the number of participants on these calls may be so large as to prohibit quarterly updates from all participants in order to avoid creating an extremely lengthy conference call and to allow the Agency to address other important issues during these calls.

The GRS will support the timely collection of important information related to the life cycle of a grant. This information includes: Significant changes in project goals, methods, study design, sample or subjects, interventions, evaluation, dissemination, training, key personnel, key preliminary findings; significant problems and resolutions; publications and presentations; tools and products; and new collaborations/partnerships with AHRQ grantees or others conducting related research. Collecting this information in a systematic manner will:

• Promote the transfer of critical information more frequently and efficiently which will enhance the Agency's ability to support research designed to improve the outcomes and quality of health care, reduce its costs, and broaden access to effective services.

• Increase the efficiency of the Agency in responding to ad-hoc information requests, Freedom of Information Act requests, and producing responses related to federally mandated programs and regulations.

• Establish a consistent approach throughout the Agency for information collection about grant progress and a systematic basis for oversight and for facilitating potential collaborations with or among grantees.

• Decrease the inconvenience and burden on grantees of unanticipated ad-hoc requests for information by the Agency in response to particular (one-time) internal and external requests for information.

Confidential commercial information will be protected in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1905. Information about Principal Investigators will be maintained in accordance with the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.

The submitted reports will be printed and included in the official grant file for each grant. All of these files will be retained according to existing agency policies and procedures and archived as required.

The data will be collected using an Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) electronic reporting form developed specifically for the purpose of collecting information quarterly. To reduce burden and to the extent possible, these forms will be pre-populated with reoccurring information needed to specifically identify the institution, project, principal investigator, and other similar information.

The mission of the DHS, as stated in the Homeland Security Act (Pub. L. 107-296), is to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, to reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and to minimize the damage and assist in recovery efforts from attacks that may occur. DHS has the specific responsibility to identify and develop countermeasures to biological threats in support of this mission. In accordance with specific national policy directives and DHS strategic policy, construction of the NBACC facility is proposed to support the DHS goals by countering bioterrorism threats through the conduct of research and operational programs.

To accomplish this mission, the proposed NBACC facility will provide the research laboratory and office space to meet program requirements for biological threat characterization and bioforensic operations and research.

• Biological Threat Characterization reduces the nation's vulnerabilities to biological threats by conducting research to better understand current biological threats as well as future threats. Additionally, this program will conduct science-based comprehensive risk assessments to anticipate, prevent, respond to and recover from an attack through the execution of an integrated science program at the NBACC facility.

• Bioforensics Operations and Research provides a validated, authoritative assessment of collected materials subject to forensic analysis. This same material may then be linked through identification of the biochemical fingerprint to the source.

The proposed NBACC facility will include laboratories designed and constructed to Biosafety Levels -2, -3, and -4 standards that will enable DHS researchers to safely conduct these research and forensics programs to accomplish this work. “Biosafety Levels” is a system of well-defined facilities, equipment, and procedures established to minimize risk of exposure to potentially hazardous agents for laboratory workers and the outside environment. The research conducted at NBACC will be solely defensive in nature, serving to understand and attribute the threats that may be used against the United States in a biological attack.

The proposed location is on an approximately 7-acre plot within the National Interagency Biodefense Campus on Area A of Fort Detrick, Maryland, near facilities of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the planned National Institutes of Health Integrated Research Facility.

Issues to be analyzed in the EIS will include safety of laboratory operations; public health and safety; handling, collection, treatment, and disposal of research wastes; and analysis of other risks, as well as concerns for pollution prevention and impacts of the proposed action on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, water resources, land use, and socioeconomic resources. The EIS will address several alternatives, including citing the proposed NBACC facility at another location on the grounds of Fort Detrick; locating the proposed NBACC facility on other existing government-owned property outside of Fort Detrick; siting the proposed NBACC facility on privately-owned property outside Fort Detrick; and a No-Action alternative, under which the proposed NBACC facility would not be built. Additional alternatives may be identified in the Public Scoping process.

Public Participation: The DHS and the U.S. Army invite full public participation to promote open communication and better decision-making. All interested persons and organizations, including minority, low-income, disadvantaged, and Native American groups, are urged to participate in this NEPA environmental analysis process. Assistance will be provided upon request to anyone with special needs to facilitate their participation in the NEPA process.

To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action and the scope of this EIS are addressed, oral and written comments are invited from all interested parties, including appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, and private organizations and citizens.

Public comments are welcome throughout the NEPA process and should be directed to Kevin Anderson, Department of Homeland Security, 7435 New Technology Way, Suite A, Frederick, MD 21703. Additional formal opportunities for public participation after the Public Scoping are tentatively scheduled as follows:

Review and comment on the Draft EIS (including a public meeting), August-September 2004.

Public meeting on the Draft EIS, August 2004.

Notices of Availability for the Draft EIS, Final EIS, and Record of Decision will be provided through direct mail, the Federal Register , and other media. Notifications also will be sent to federal, state, and local agencies and persons and organizations that submit comments or questions throughout the NEPA process. Precise schedules and locations for public meetings will be announced in the local news media. Interested individuals and organizations may request to be included on the mailing list for public distribution of meeting announcements and associated documents.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 7, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Carlos Mitchell, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Arkansas to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

All counties within the State of Arkansas are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective May 18, 2004.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Arkansas is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 7, 2004:

Independence County for Public Assistance.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 25, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas Costello, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Iowa to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

All counties within the State of Iowa are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 25, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Alexander A. Wells, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Nebraska to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

All counties within the State of Nebraska are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ), and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit(s) subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director ( ADDRESSES above).

The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples and discarded shells from wild caught specimens of two species of turtle ( Apalone ater and Terrapene coahuila ) from Mexico for scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a five-year period.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered marine mammals and/or marine mammals. The applications were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ) and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), and the regulations governing endangered species (50 CFR part 17) and/or marine mammals (50 CFR part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director ( ADDRESSES above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population in Canada for personal use.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Viscount Melville polar bear population in Canada for personal use.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population in Canada for personal use.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Southern Beaufort polar bear population in Canada for personal use.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population in Canada for personal use.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Southern Beaufort polar bear population in Canada for personal use.

The Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (Project) is located on the Flathead Indian Reservation in northwestern Montana. The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is required to transfer the operations and maintenance of the Project as provided by the 1908 Act of May 29, 1908, Public Law 60-156, 35 Stat. 441 (1908) (the 1908 Act) and the 1948 Act of May 25, 1948, Public Law 80-554, 62 Stat. 269 (1948) (the 1948 Act).

In 1904, the Flathead Indian Allotment Act authorized allotments of land within the Flathead Indian Reservation to members of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribes (“tribes”) and construction of the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project for “the benefit of Indians” on the Flathead Indian Reservation. 33 Stat. 302. When this Act was amended in 1908, it also authorized the construction of irrigation systems to serve homesteaded lands within the Flathead Indian Reservation and provided for turnover of the operation and maintenance of irrigation works to non-Indian lands served by the Project when certain Project construction repayment conditions had been met. 35 Stat. 450. Further, upon turn over of the project, the 1948 Act called for the operation and maintenance of the Project under rules and regulations approved by the Secretary.

As of August of 2002, there were 134,788 total acres in the project; 127,535 of which were assessed acres, with 7,252 designated as temporarily non-assessed acres. Approximately 10 percent of the project's irrigated lands are held in trust by the United States for the benefit of individual Indian landowners and for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribes. Trust land totals 11,771 acres, while land in fee status totals 115,764 acres. The primary source of the water for the Project originates from the Mission Mountains which border the east side of the reservation. Project facilities include 17 major storage reservoirs, 1,300 miles of canals and laterals and more than 10,000 structures. The project is divided into the Mission, Post, Pablo, Camas, and Jocko divisions. Primary irrigated crops are hay and alfalfa, grains, potatoes, canola, and some fruit orchards.

Currently, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Flathead Agency Superintendent is the Officer in Charge of the Project and administers activities through the Irrigation Systems Manager. The Irrigation Systems Manager supervises the operation and maintenance of the Project works.

Non-Indian irrigation interests are represented by three irrigation districts, the Flathead Irrigation District, the Mission Irrigation District, and the Jocko Valley Irrigation District. These Districts signed repayment contracts with the United States in 1928, 1931, and 1934 respectively, and are collectively represented by the Flathead Joint Board of Control (FJBC), which is chartered under state law and represents only owners of fee lands. Individual Indians and the tribes that irrigate lands held in trust by the United States are statutorily excluded from representation by the FJBC.

Repayment of Project construction conditions were fulfilled in early January 2004. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the tribes and the FJBC are developing proposed standard operating procedures for the Project and are proposing to contract the management of the Project under a Cooperating Management Entity, made up of representatives from the FJBC and the tribes with BIA providing oversight functions and maintaining its traditional role as trustee.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has been delegated the responsibility to serve as the Lead Agency for National Environmental Policy Act compliance in connection with the proposed operations and maintenance of the Flathead Indian Irrigation project upon transfer. Issues to be addressed in the environmental analysis include, but are not limited to, irrigation and farming, rights-of-ways, treaty-protected fisheries, aquatic habitat, biological resources, wildlife habitat, and Indian traditional and cultural properties and resources.

Alternatives to the proposed operations and maintenance of the project to be examined in the EIS may include a variety of measures, such as various Project management control structures, certain operating and maintenance methods or procedures, system rehabilitation, and alternative water delivery regimes. The range of environmental issues and alternatives will be further developed based upon comments received during the scoping process.

The Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate the lease effective the date of termination, May 1, 2002, subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. This is in accordance with section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 199(d) and (e)).

This order is issued under the authority of 43 CFR 8364.1 and 43 CFR 8341.2(a) as a temporary measure while the off-highway vehicle (OHV) management portion of the Little Snake Field Office Resource Management Plan is reviewed and modified as needed to address public issues, concerns and needs, as well as resource uses, development, impacts, and protection.

This order affects public lands in Moffat County, Colorado thus described:

This restriction order shall be effective May 1, 2004, and shall remain in effect until rescinded or modified by the Authorized Officer.

Current OHV use designation for public land in the area is “open” and was established in the Little Snake Resource Area Management Plan, Record of Decision (ROD) 1989. Increased OHV use in this area and on a prominent mesa top overlook have exposed a significant cultural resource and a Bureau of Land Management Special Status Species, Duchesne Milkvetch (Astragalus duchensensis), Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 1997, to unacceptable impacts.

The modification of the current OHV use designation is necessary to adequately protect natural resources and cultural resources on public land. This modification is a temporary travel restriction that prohibits the use of motorized and non motorized vehicles in the designated area. These issues will be thoroughly addressed during Land Use Planning for this area to start in 2004.

The designated area affected by this order will be posted with appropriate regulatory signs. Persons who are exempt from the restriction contained in this notice include:

1. Any Federal, State, or local Officers engaged in fire, emergency, and law enforcement activities.

2. Persons or agencies holding a special use permit or right-of-way for access to maintain and operate authorized facilities within the restricted area, for purposes related to access for maintenance and operation of said authorized facilities, and provided such motorized use is limited to the routes specifically identified in the special use permit or right-of-way.

3. Grazing permittees holding a valid grazing permit for the restricted area will contact the Authorized Officer for emergency grazing situations with the exact location of the emergency. The Authorized Officer will issue verbal instructions as needed to avoid the areas of concern within the designated area. All verbal instructions will be followed by the grazing permittee. Sick or injured animal(s) and the recovery of the animal(s) will be completed with as little resource damage as possible. Further, grazing permittees will notify the Authorized Officer, within 10 working days, of such actions in a letter describing the location and reason for the action. BLM mitigative measures related to the plant community and/or cultural resource will be developed to address any damages caused by the emergency situation.

Penalities: Violations of this restriction order are punishable by fines as specified in 43 CFR 8360.0-7 not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months. Further, the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 and amendments (16 U.S.C. 470) at 470ee and 470ff provide for prohibited acts, Criminal and Civil penalties, respectively.

This notice applies to closures on and adjacent to permitted special events including but not limited to: motorized off-highway-vehicle (OHV) events, mountain-bike races, and horse-endurance competitive event sites and routes. Competitive events are conducted along dirt roads, trails, washes, and areas approved for such use through the Special Recreation Permit application process. Events occur throughout the year. Closure period is from 6 a.m. event day until the event finishes, or until the event has cleared between affected check point locations; approximately 2 to 48-hour periods. The general public will be advised of each event and closure specifics via local newspapers and radio ads within seven (7) to thirty (30) days prior to the running of an event. Event maps and information will be posted at the Farmington Field Office.

Locations most commonly used for permitted events include, but are not limited to:

Marking and effect of closure: The BLM lands to be temporarily closed to public use include the width and length of those roads, trails, and routes identified as the route for the permitted event, identified by colored flagging, chalk arrows in the dirt, traffic cones, temporary barricades, and/or directional arrows attached to wooden stakes; vehicle closures for the public in vendor areas and spectator viewing areas, identified with colored ribbon and signs; camping closures, except in such areas designated for camping by the BLM, identified with signs and colored ribbon and/or barricades, gates, cones, and fences; vehicle speeds restricted within the closure area, identified with speed limit signs; alcoholic beverage closure, identified with signs at entrances to the event. The authorized applicants or their representatives are required to post warning signs, control access to, and clearly mark the event routes and area during closure periods.

Public uses generally affected by a Temporary Closure include: road and trail uses, camping, picnicking, alcoholic beverage consumption, parking, cross-country travel, and public-land exploration. Spectator and support vehicles may be driven in designated areas and routes only. Spectators may observe the races from specified locations as directed by event and agency officials.

This closure is an intermittent closure of event sites. Closures would only last for the period of the event. Most would only last one day, the maximum closure would last two days.

You may obtain a map and schedule of each closure area at the contact address.

Exceptions: Closure restrictions do not apply to permittees, their employees, competitors, medical/rescue, law enforcement, oil and gas industry employees doing day-to-day necessary service, and BLM personnel monitoring the event.

Penalty: Any person failing to comply with the closure orders may be subject to imprisonment for not more than 12 months, or a fine in accordance with the applicable provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3571, or both.

Section 2505 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 afforded royalty relief in the Fort Union Coal region for coal lease applicants, for lessees with royalty reductions approved after March 29, 1990, and for lessees whose royalty reduction applications are approved in the future.

Section 39 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended and supplemented, authorizes the Secretary of Interior to reduce royalty rates to a rate lower than the legal minimum for Federal minerals. This authority to reduce the royalty rate for coal leases is defined in 43 CFR 3485.2(c)(1). The purpose of a royalty reduction must be to encourage the greatest ultimate recovery of Federal coal and to conserve the resource; i.e. , to prevent Federal coal from being bypassed. Royalty reduction is warranted when it is necessary to promote development or if the Federal lease cannot be successfully operated under the terms of the lease.

The “Fort Union Category 5 Royalty Rate Reduction Study” requested by the State Director, Montana State Office, Bureau of Land Management, was completed by the Northwest Regional Evaluation Team of the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of Interior in 1991. The 1991 study recommended that a Category 5 Royalty Rate Reduction be granted for the Fort Union Coal Region. The study determined that all five (5) criteria for a Category 5 reduction were met. Based on royalty rate information at that time, the study recommended that the Federal royalty rate be set at 2.0 percent. The rate took effect on applications filed, beginning in 1992.

The BLM Royalty Reduction Guidelines for Coal and Solid Leasable Minerals require that a review of the competitive non-Federal coal royalty rate, within the Qualified Geographic Area, be completed every 2 years in order to determine if the rate is still appropriate. Subsequent review studies, by the Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, determined that the prevailing rates remained at 2.0 percent from 1991 through 1996; increased to 2.6 percent from 1997 through 2000; and decreased to 2.4 percent from 2001 through 2003. The most recent study, completed in March 2004, is the basis for the following determinations.

A. Geographic Area Qualification —The Counties of McLean, Mercer, and Oliver, North Dakota, and Richland County, Montana, continue to meet the established five (5) criteria to qualify under Category 5 for royalty rate differentials as follows: (1) The Federal Government is not market dominant in this area; (2) Federal royalty rates are above the current market royalty rate for non-Federal rates in the area; (3) Based on a mine-by-mine examination, it is apparent that there are instances where Federal coal can be expected to be bypassed in the near future due to the royalty rate differential between Federal and non-Federal coal; (4) All three (3) previous criteria considerations have been found to exist throughout the region; and (5) A Category 5 Royalty Rate Reduction is not likely to result in undue competitive advantages over neighboring areas.

B. Establishment of Competitive Royalty Rates —The competitive royalty rate of 2.2 percent is established to promote development of Federal coal reserves situated in the Counties of McLean, Mercer, and Oliver, North Dakota, and Richland County, Montana, that may otherwise be bypassed in favor of non-Federal coal having a lower royalty rate.

C. Category 5 Reduction in Royalty Applications —Federal lease-specific applications for Category 5 Reduction in Royalty for Coal deposits within the Counties in North Dakota and Montana named above will be accepted by the Montana State Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107-6800. The Category 5 Royalty Rate of 2.2 percent will be effective upon publication of this notice. Applications will be processed pursuant to the regulations at 43 CFR part 3485 as established by the “Royalty Rate Reduction Guidelines for the Solid Leasable Minerals.”

The geographic area qualification and the establishment of the competitive royalty rate under Category 5 of the “Royalty Rate Reduction Guidelines for the Solid Leasable Minerals” will be reviewed again and updated 2 years from the effective date hereof.

These surveys were executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management, and are necessary for the management of resources. The lands surveyed are:

The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 10, Township 14 North, Range 106 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, was accepted May 28, 2004.

The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of the Seventh Standard Parallel North, through Range 108 West, the Thirteenth Auxiliary Guide Meridian West, through Township 29 North, between Ranges 108 and 109 West, the east and north boundaries and subdivisional lines, Township 29 North, Range 108 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, was accepted May 28, 2004.

Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $1.10 per page.

If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You may mail comments to Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Superintendent, 1978 Island Ford Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30350-3400.

You may also comment via the Internet by going to the Chattahoochee River NRA Web site at http://www.nps.gov/chat and selecting the “Contact Us” link. Please submit Internet comments as a plain text file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: General Management Plan Team” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact the park directly at Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Phone 678-538-1210. Finally, you may hand-deliver comments to the Superintendent, Chattahoochee River NRA at 1978 Island Ford Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30350-3400.

Please note that names and addresses of people who comment become part of the public record. Anonymous comments will not be considered. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

The responsible official for this Environmental Impact Statement is Patricia A. Hooks, Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street, SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

Title of Collection: EHR Generic Clearance.

OMB Approval Number: 3145-0136.

Expiration Date of Approval: November 30, 2004.

Proposed Renewal Project: The EHR Generic Clearance was established in 1995 to integrate management, monitoring and evaluation information pertaining to the NSF's Education and Training (E&T) portfolio. Under a generic survey clearance (OMB 3145-0136) data from the NSF administrative databases are incorporated and additional information is available through initiative-, divisional-, and program-specific data collections.

Use of the Information: This information is required for effective administration, program monitoring and evaluation, and for measuring attainment of NSF's program goals, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the President's Management 2003 agenda as represented by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).

Burden of the Public: The total estimate for this collection is 50,000 annual burden hours. This figure is based on the previous 3 years of collecting information under this clearance and anticipated collections. The average annual reporting burden is between .5 and 50 hours per ‘respondent’ depending on whether a respondent is self-reporting or representing a project and reporting on behalf of groups of individuals.