Background

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), signed December 2004, requires that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) provide Recreation RACs with an opportunity to make recommendations to the two agencies on certain types of proposed recreation fee changes.

REA allows the agencies to use existing advisory councils, such as BLM Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), or to establish new committees as appropriate. The Forest Service and BLM elected to jointly use existing BLM RACs in the states of Arizona, Idaho, the Dakotas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. In 2006, the Forest Service chartered new Recreation RACs for the states of California and Colorado, and for the Forest Service Pacific Northwest, Eastern and Southern Regions. The Forest Service is using an existing advisory board for the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota. In addition, the Governors of three states—Alaska, Nebraska and Wyoming—requested that their State be exempt from the REA-R/RAC requirement, and the two Departments concurred with the exemptions.

Members were appointed to the Eastern Recreation RAC in February 2007 for either two year or three-year terms. The terms for the two-year members will expire February 2009.

The Eastern Recreation RAC provides recreation fee recommendations to the Forest Service. The Recreation RAC makes recreation fee program recommendations on implementing or eliminating standard amenity fees; expanded amenity fees; and noncommercial, individual special recreation permit fees; expanding or limiting the recreation fee program; and fee-level changes.

The Recreation RAC consists of 11 members appointed by the Secretary. For purposes to better serve public recreation activities in the Eastern Region, two members were selected to serve in the Local Environmental Group category and no members were appointed for Motorized Outfitters and Guides. These members provide a broad and balanced representation from the recreation community as follows:

(1) Five persons who represent recreation users and that include, as appropriate, the following:

a. Winter motorized recreation, such as snowmobiling;

b. Winter non-motorized recreation, such as snowshoeing, cross-country and downhill skiing, and snowboarding;

c. Summer motorized recreation, such as motorcycles, boats, and off-highway vehicles;

d. Summer non-motorized recreation, such as backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, canoeing, and rafting; and

e. Hunting and fishing;

(2) Three persons who represent interest groups that include, as appropriate, the following:

a. Motorized outfitters and guides;

b. Non-motorized outfitters and guides; and

c. Local environmental groups.

(3) Three persons, as follows:

a. State tourism official to represent the State;

b. A person who represents affected Indian tribes; and

c. A person who represents affected local government interests.

Any individual or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to represent the interests listed above to serve on the Recreation RAC. To be considered for membership, nominees must:

• Identify what interest group they would represent and how they are qualified to represent that group;

• State why they want to serve on the committee and what they can contribute;

• Show their past experience in working successfully as part of a collaborative group; and

• Complete Form AD-755, Advisory Committee or Research and Promotion Background Information.

Letters of recommendation are welcome, but not required. Individuals may also nominate themselves. Nominees do not need to live in a state within a particular Recreation RAC's area of jurisdiction nor live in a state in which Forest Service-managed lands are located.

Application packets, including evaluation criteria and the AD-755 form, are available at http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/rrac-application.shtml or by contacting the Eastern Region. Nominees must submit all documents to the appropriate regional contact. Additional information about recreation fees and REA is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/about-rec-fees.shtml.

The Forest Service will also work with Governors and county officials to identify potential nominees.

The Forest Service will review the applications and prepare a list of qualified applicants from which the Secretary shall appoint both members and alternates. An alternate will become a participating member of the Recreation RAC only if the member for whom the alternate is appointed to replace leaves the committee permanently.

Recreation RAC members serve without pay but are reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses for regularly scheduled committee meetings. All Recreation RAC meetings are open to the public aid an open public forum is part of each meeting. Meeting dates and times will be determined by agency officials in consultation with the Recreation RAC members.

Background

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), signed December 2004, requires that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) provide Recreation RACs with an opportunity to make recommendations to the two agencies on certain types of proposed recreation fee changes.

REA allows the agencies to use existing advisory councils, such as BLM Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), or to establish new committees as appropriate. The Forest Service and BLM elected to jointly use existing BLM RACs in the states of Arizona, Idaho, the Dakotas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. In 2006, the Forest Service chartered new Recreation RACs for the states of California and Colorado, and for the Forest Service Pacific Northwest, Eastern and Southern Regions. The Forest Service is using an existing advisory board for the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota.

In addition, the Governors of three states—Alaska, Nebraska and Wyoming—requested that their State be exempt from the REA-R/RAC requirement, and the two Departments concurred with the exemptions.

Members were appointed to the Southern Recreation RAC in February 2007 for either two year or three-year terms. The terms for the two-year members will expire February 2009.

The Recreation RACs provide recreation fee recommendations to both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These committees make recreation fee program recommendations on implementing or eliminating standard amenity fees; expanded amenity fees; and noncommercial, individual special recreation permit fees; expanding or limiting the recreation fee program; and fee-level changes.

Each Recreation RAC consists of 11 members appointed by the Secretary. REA provided flexibility to modify the specified membership of the RAC “as appropriate” to ensure a fair and balanced representation of recreation interests. Due to climate conditions in the Southern Region, the Region does not have a winter sports program. Therefore, the categories of winter motorized recreation and winter non-motorized recreation were replaced with (1) camping and (2) wildlife viewing/visiting interpretive sites. In addition, as the region has very few motorized outfitters and guides, they have two positions representing non-motorized outfitter and guides. The positions are as follows:

(1) Five persons who represent recreation users and that include, as appropriate, the following:

a. Camping interests;

b. Day-use interests, such as wildlife viewing and interpretive centers;

c. Summer motorized recreation, such as motorcycles, boats, and off-highway vehicles;

d. Summer non-motorized recreation, such as backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, canoeing, and rafting; and

e. Hunting and fishing;

(2) Three persons who represent interest groups that include, as appropriate, the following:

a. Non-motorized outfitters and guides-position one;

b. Non-motorized outfitters and guides-position two; and

c. Local environmental groups.

(3) Three persons, as follows:

a. State tourism official to represent the state;

b. A person who represents affected Indian tribes; and

c. A person who represents affected local government interests.

Any individual or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to represent the interests listed above to serve on the Recreation RAC. To be considered for membership, nominees must:

• Identify what interest group they would represent and how they are qualified to represent that group;

• State why they want to serve on the committee and what they can contribute;

• Show their past experience in working successfully as part of a collaborative group; and

• Complete Form AD-755, Advisory Committee or Research and Promotion Background Information.

Letters of recommendation are welcome, but not required. Individuals may also nominate themselves. Nominees do not need to live in a state within a particular Recreation RAC's area of jurisdiction nor live in a state in which Forest Service-managed lands are located.

Application packets, including evaluation criteria and the AD-755 form, are available at http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/rrac-application.shtml or by contacting the Southern Region as identified in this notice. Nominees must submit all documents to the appropriate regional contact. Additional information about recreation fees and REA is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/about-rec-fees.shtml.

The Forest Service will also work with Governors and county officials to identify potential nominees.

The Forest Service will review the applications and prepare a list of qualified applicants from which the Secretary shall appoint both members and alternates. An alternate will become a participating member of the Recreation RACs only if the member for whom the alternate is appointed to replace leaves the committee permanently.

Recreation RAC members serve without pay but are reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses for regularly scheduled committee meetings. All Recreation RAC meetings are open to the public and an open public forum is part of each meeting. Meeting dates and times will be determined by agency officials in consultation with the Recreation RAC members.

On July 27, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Taiwan. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From United Kingdom, Taiwan, and South Korea , 64 FR 40555 (July 27, 1999) ( SSSSC Order ). On July 3, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Taiwan. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 72 FR 36420 (July 3, 2007). On July 31, 2007, the petitioners 1 submitted a timely request for the Department to conduct an administrative review of the sales of SSSSC made during the POR by Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd.; Chia Far; Chien Shing Stainless Co.; China Steel Corporation; Emerdex Stainless Flat-Rolled Products, Inc.; Emerdex Stainless Steel, Inc.; Emerdex Group; Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd.; PFP Taiwan Co. Ltd.; Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen); Tang Eng Iron Works; Yieh Loong Enterprise Co., Ltd. (also known as Chung Hung Steel Co., Ltd.); Yieh Trading Corp. (also known as Yieh Corp.); Yieh Mau Corp.; and Yieh United Steel Corporation (YUSCO), pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). On August 24, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review covering each of these 15 companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 72 FR 48613, 48614 (Aug. 24, 2007).

In October 2007, the petitioners withdrew their request for administrative review with respect to the following 12 companies: China Steel Corporation; Emerdex Stainless Flat Rolled Products, Inc.; Emerdex Stainless Steel, Inc.; Emerdex Group; Tang Eng Iron Works; PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd.; Yieh Loong Enterprise Co., Ltd. (aka Chung Hung Steel Co., Ltd.); Yieh Trading Corp.; Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Yieh Mau Corp.; Chien Shing Stainless Co.; and Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd. Subsequently, also in October 2007, the Department issued its quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire to Chia Far, Ta Chen, and YUSCO, the remaining three companies for which a review was requested. We received Chia Far's response to the Q&V questionnaire, as well as certification of no shipments from YUSCO and Ta Chen, on October 26, 2007, and October 29, 2007, respectively.

In November 2007, the Department issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Chia Far. In December 2007, we received Chia Far's response to section A of the questionnaire ( i.e. , the section regarding general information), as well as its response to sections B through D of the questionnaire ( i.e. , the sections regarding sales and cost data).

Also in December 2007, we issued a letter to Ta Chen requesting that it reconcile its claim that it did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR with information the Department obtained from CBP. Ta Chen responded to our request for information regarding its POR shipments in January 2008.

In March 2008, we published a notice rescinding the administrative review with respect to the 12 companies named above based on the petitioners' timely withdrawal of the review requests. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 73 FR 16264 (Mar. 27, 2008).

In April and May 2008, we issued supplemental questionnaires covering sections A through D to Chia Far. We received Chia Far's responses to the supplemental questionnaires in May and June 2008.

The POR is July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007.

The products covered by the order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( e.g. , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.

The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of the order are the following: 1) sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, 2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, 3) plate ( i.e. , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more), 4) flat wire ( i.e. , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and 5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d).

Also excluded from the scope of the order are certain specialty stainless steel products described below. Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.

Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.

Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.

Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as Arnokrome III. 2

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as Gilphy 36. 3

Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as Durphynox 17. 4

Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( e.g. , carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as GIN4 Mo. The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is GIN5 steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, GIN6. 6

As noted in the “Background” section above, two respondents, Ta Chen and YUSCO, certified to the Department that they had no shipments/entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. The Department subsequently confirmed with CBP the no-shipment claim made by YUSCO. See the August 31, 2007, Memorandum to The File from Nichole Zink, Analyst, entitled, “2006-2007 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strips in Coils from Taiwan: Entry Information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)” (CBP Memo). Because the evidence on the record indicates that YUSCO did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we preliminarily determine it is appropriate to rescind the review for YUSCO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice. See , e.g. , Chia Far Indus. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States , 343 F. Supp 2d 1344, 1374 (2004); Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part , 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005) ( Rebar from Turkey ); and Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey , 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998) ( Pipe and Tube from Turkey ).

Regarding Ta Chen, CBP information indicated that this company may have had shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the POR. See the CBP Memo. Based on the CBP information, on December 14, 2007, we requested that Ta Chen reconcile its no-shipment claim with information contained in the CBP memo. On January 7, 2008, Ta Chen responded to our request for information explaining that the entries at issue are not subject merchandise because they are not of coiled product. After reviewing the CBP data, and the documents provided by Ta Chen in its January 7 submission, including invoices, mill test reports, and shipping documents, we preliminarily determine that Ta Chen's POR entries were not subject merchandise as defined by the scope of the order. Specifically, the order only covers products in coils, and the evidence submitted by Ta Chen shows that the entries in question were of stainless steel strip that was cut-to-length, and not in coils. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are also preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Ta Chen. See , e.g. , Rebar From Turkey , 70 FR at 67666; Pipe and Tube from Turkey , 63 FR at 3519.

In the 2005-2006 administrative review, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding, we found Chia Far and Lucky Medsup Inc. (Lucky Medsup), one of Chia Far's U.S. reseller customers, to be affiliated under section 771(33) of the Act based upon: 1) a document demonstrating the existence of a principal-agent relationship; 2) Chia Far's degree of involvement in sales between Lucky Medsup and its customers, showing that for some sales Chia Far knew the identity of the end-customer before it set its price to Lucky Medsup; 3) the fact that Lucky Medsup only sold subject merchandise produced by Chia Far; and 4) the fact that Lucky Medsup did not maintain inventory of, or further manufacture, SSSSC. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 73 FR 6932 (Feb. 6, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3 ( 2005-2006 SSSSC from Taiwan Final Results ). This affiliation determination was consistent with the Department's findings in prior administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Taiwan. See , e.g. , Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 71 FR 75504 (Dec. 15, 2006); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 67 FR 6682 (Feb. 13, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 23 (upheld by the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Chia Far Industrial Factory Co. Ltd. v. United States, et al. , 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1356 (CIT 2004)). See also the July 25, 2008, memorandum from Henry Almond, Analyst, to the file entitled, “Placing Information Regarding the Principal-Agent Relationship between Lucky Medsup Inc. and Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. on the Record of the 2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan.”

In the instant administrative review, Chia Far has continued to argue that it is not affiliated with Lucky Medsup. Chia Far concedes that the relationship between the two companies has not changed from the prior reviews, except that the two have recently exchanged correspondence stating that the sole distribution relationship entered into in 1994 was terminated in 1995, and that Lucky Medsup has recently begun selling merchandise produced by other manufacturers. Notwithstanding the additional information provided by Chia Far, we preliminarily find that the manner in which Chia Far and Lucky Medsup conduct business between them has not materially changed from the previous review and we continue to find that Chia Far and Lucky Medsup are affiliated, in accordance with section 771(33) of the Act.

Chia Far acknowledges that, with the exception of the exchange of correspondence stating that the 1994 sole distributorship arrangement had been terminated in 1995, “the pertinent facts with respect to that relationship have not changed between the two review periods.” See Chia Far's December 3, 2007, submission at page 7. While Chia Far and Lucky Medsup may have exchanged a letter stating that the sole distributor relationship was terminated in 1995, this declaration has not changed the fact that these companies continue to operate in a principal-agent relationship. In Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Furfuryl Alcohol From the Republic of South Africa , 62 FR 61084, 61089 (Nov. 14, 1997), the Department stated that even in the absence of an explicit agreement, where there exists a principal who has the potential to control pricing and/or the terms of sale through the end-customer, the Department will find agency and thus affiliation. The letter purporting to establish the date that the sole distributorship relationship was terminated was submitted for the purposes of this proceeding and was not a document generated in the ordinary course of business from the applicable time period. Given that this letter was not produced in the ordinary course of business, and in light of other evidence on the record, specifically the fact that the functional relationship between the two companies has not changed, we have preliminarily determined not to place great weight on the letter. Additionally, there is no other evidence on the record of this administrative review that indicates the principal-agent relationship found in prior reviews does not continue to exist in this review. Those conditions established: 1) Chia Far's degree of involvement in sales between Lucky Medsup and its customers; 2) that Chia Far knew the identity of Lucky Medsup's customers, and the customers were aware Chia Far was the supplier; 3) that Lucky Medsup operated as a “go-through” that did not maintain any inventory or further manufacture products; and 4) that, with the exception of one transaction involving non-subject merchandise, all of the products sold by Lucky Medsup during the POR were subject merchandise produced or exported by Chia Far.

Section 771(33) of the Act states that for purposes of affiliation, “a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over that person.” The Department's regulations further provide that “{t}he Secretary will not find that control exists on the basis of these factors unless the relationship has the potential to impact decisions concerning the production, pricing, or cost of the subject merchandise or foreign like product.” See 19 CFR 351.102(b). Because the relationship between the companies has not changed, as conceded by Chia Far, including the fact that Chia Far supplied all of the subject merchandise sold by Lucky Medsup during the POR, we continue to find for purposes of these preliminary results that Chia Far is affiliated with Lucky Medsup because Chia Far is in a position to exercise restraint or direction over Lucky Medsup.

Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act defines NV as the price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country (home market), in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP). In implementing this provision, the CIT has found that sales should be reported as home market sales if the producer “knew or should have known that the merchandise {it sold} was for home consumption based upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the sales.” See Tung Mung Dev. Co v. United States , 25 CIT 752, 783 (2001) (quoting INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG v. United States , 957 F. Supp. 251 (1997)). Where a respondent has no knowledge as to the destination of subject merchandise, except that it is for export, the Department will classify such sales as export sales and exclude them from the home market sales database. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Korea , 58 FR 37176, 37182-37183 (July 9, 1993).

In its December 21, 2007, questionnaire response, Chia Far stated that it shipped some of the SSSSC it sold to home market customers during the POR to a container yard or it placed the SSSSC in an ocean shipping container at the home market customer's request. The Department has preliminarily determined that, based on the fact that these sales were sent to a container yard or placed in a container by Chia Far at the request of the home market customer, Chia Far should have known that the SSSSC in question was not for consumption in the home market. Therefore, consistent with this determination, the Department has preliminarily excluded these sales from Chia Far's home market sales database. This treatment is consistent with our practice in prior administrative reviews of this order. See , e.g. , Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 72 FR 43236, 43241 (Aug. 3, 2007) ( 2005-2006 SSSSC from Taiwan Preliminary Results ), unchanged in 2005-2006 SSSSC from Taiwan Final Results , 73 FR 6932 (Feb. 6, 2008).

In order to determine whether Chia Far sold SSSSC to the United States at prices less than NV, the Department compared the EP and CEP of individual U.S. sales to the monthly weighted-average NV of sales of the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. See section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Section 771(16) of the Act defines foreign like product as merchandise that is identical or similar to subject merchandise and produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject merchandise. Thus, we considered all products covered by the scope of the order that were produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject merchandise, and sold by Chia Far in the comparison market during the POR, to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to SSSSC sold in the United States.

During the POR, Chia Far sold subject merchandise and foreign like product that it made from hot- and cold-rolled stainless steel coils (products covered by the scope of the order) purchased from unaffiliated parties. Chia Far further processed the hot- and cold-rolled stainless steel coils by performing one or more of the following procedures: cold-rolling, bright annealing, surface finishing/shaping, and slitting. We did not consider Chia Far to be the producer of the merchandise under review if it performed only insignificant processing on the coils ( e.g. , annealing, slitting, surface finishing). See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 69 FR 74495 (Dec. 14, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (listing painting, slitting, finishing, pickling, oiling, and annealing as minor processing for flat-rolled products). Furthermore, we did not consider Chia Far to be the producer of the cold-rolled products that it sold if it was not the first party to cold-roll the coils. The cold-rolling process changes the surface quality and mechanical properties of the product and produces useful combinations of hardness, strength, stiffness, and ductility. Stainless steel cold-rolled coils are distinguished from hot-rolled coils by their reduced thickness, tighter tolerances, better surface quality, and increased hardness which are achieved through cold-rolling. Chia Far's subsequent cold-rolling of the cold-rolled coils that it purchased may have modified these characteristics to suit the needs of particular customers; however, it did not impart these defining characteristics to the finished coils. Thus, we considered the original party that cold-rolled the product to be its producer.

The Department compared U.S. sales to sales made in the comparison market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month in which the first U.S. sale was made until two months after the month in which the last U.S. sale was made. See 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2). Where there were no sales of identical merchandise made in the comparison market in the ordinary course of trade, the Department compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making product comparisons, the Department selected identical and most similar foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by Chia Far in the following order of importance: grade, hot- or cold-rolled, gauge, surface finish, metallic coating, non-metallic coating, width, temper, and edge.

The Department based the price of Chia Far's U.S. sales of subject merchandise on EP or CEP, as appropriate. Specifically, when Chia Far sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of the record, we based the price of the sale on EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. When Chia Far sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States through its U.S. affiliate, Lucky Medsup, we based the price of the sale on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.

We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, international freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, container handling charges, harbor maintenance fees, and certificate-of-origin fees in, accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

We based CEP on packed prices sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, container handling expenses, foreign harbor construction expenses, international freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. duty expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, other U.S. transportation expenses, and harbor maintenance fees, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted from CEP those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( i.e. , imputed credit expenses, bank fees, and warranties) and indirect selling expenses.

In addition, we deducted from the CEP starting price an amount for CEP profit (profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and (d)(2) of the Act), in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. We computed profit by deducting from the total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to the expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home markets.

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because the aggregate volume of Chia Far's home market sales of the foreign like product is more than five percent of the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we based NV on sales of the foreign like product in the respondent's home market.

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same LOT as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id . See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) ( Plate from South Africa ). In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( i.e. , the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( i.e. , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 7 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States , 243 F.3d 1301, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( i.e. , no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South Africa , 62 FR at 61732-33.

In this administrative review, we obtained information from Chia Far regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by Chia Far for each channel of distribution. Chia Far reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market to distributors, as well as CEP sales to Lucky Medsup. Chia Far reported identical selling activities in selling to its unaffiliated U.S. customers as it did in selling to its affiliate, Lucky Medsup. We examined the selling activities performed for both channels and found that Chia Far performed the following types of selling activities equally in selling to its unaffiliated U.S. customers and to Lucky Medsup: 1) price negotiation and communication with the customer; 2) arranging for freight and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services (where necessary); and 3) provision of general technical advice (where necessary) and quality assurance-related activities, including warranty services. These selling activities can be generally grouped into four selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and delivery; and 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and, 4) warranty and technical support. Accordingly, we find that Chia Far performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and warranty and technical support services for U.S. sales. Because the level of Chia Far's selling activities did not vary by distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.

With respect to the home market, Chia Far reported that it made sales to distributors and end users. We examined the selling activities performed for home market sales and found that Chia Far performed the following types of selling activities equally for sales to distributors and end users: 1) price negotiation and communication with the customer; 2) arranging for freight (where necessary); 3) provision of general technical advice (where necessary) and quality assurance-related activities, including providing warranty services and rebates; and 4) post-sale warehousing/processing on request. Accordingly, based on the selling functions analysis described above, we find that Chia Far performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, warranty and technical support services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for home market sales. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market for Chia Far.

Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to the home market LOT and found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers do not differ significantly. Specifically, although Chia Far performed occasional warehousing and post-sale processing functions in the home market that it did not perform on sales to the United States, we do not find these differences to be material selling function distinctions significant to warrant a separate LOT for purposes of these preliminary results. Thus, we determine that the NV LOT for Chia Far is the same as the U.S. LOT for Chia Far.

Regarding the CEP-offset provision, as described above, it is appropriate only if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability. Because we find that no difference in LOTs exists, we do not find that a CEP offset is warranted for Chia Far.

In the 2005-2006 administrative review, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of the date of initiation of this review, the Department determined that Chia Far sold the foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the product and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. See 2005-2006 SSSSC from Taiwan Final Results , 73 FR at 6935. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Chia Far made home market sales during the POR at prices below their COPs. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each foreign like product sold by Chia Far during the POR, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of the respondent's materials and fabrication costs, G&A expenses, and financial expenses.

For the cost of SSSSC not produced by Chia Far, as in prior segments of this proceeding, we used, as facts available, Chia Far's costs to produce merchandise with characteristics identical or similar to the characteristics of the merchandise not produced by Chia Far. See 2005-2006 SSSSC from Taiwan Preliminary Results , 72 FR at 43224, unchanged in 2005-2006 SSSSC from Taiwan Final Results , 73 FR 6932. We find that the percentage of Chia Far's U.S. sales accounted for by this merchandise is not significant. However, in future segments of this proceeding, if the proportion of merchandise produced by other manufacturers becomes significant, we may request that Chia Far provide cost data from its unaffiliated supplier.

For further information, see the July 30, 2008, Memorandum to the File from Henry Almond entitled, “Sales Calculation Adjustments for Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far) for the Preliminary Results.”

In order to determine whether sales were made at prices below the COP on a product-specific basis, we compared the Chia Far's weighted-average COP to the prices of its home market sales of foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, in determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: 1) in substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and 2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared the COP to home market sales prices, less any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect selling expenses.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of Chia Far's sales of a given product were made at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of Chia Far's sales of a given product were made at prices less than the COP during the POR, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time ( i.e. , one year) pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Based on our comparison of POR average costs to reported prices, we also determined, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that these sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. As a result, we disregarded the below-cost sales of that product.

We based NV for Chia Far on prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for billing adjustments and rebates. We also made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c) for differences in credit expenses, bank fees, and warranties.

We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Finally, we made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the respondent for the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007:

The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: 1) the party's name, address and telephone number; 2) the number of participants; and 3) a list of issues to be discussed. Id . Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

For Chia Far, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales.

We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis ( i.e. , less than 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis . See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) ( Assessment Policy Notice ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( e.g. , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for Chia Far will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case no cash deposit will be required; 2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the initial less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 12.61 percent, the all others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See SSSSC Order , 64 FR at 40557. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

These preliminary results of administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

The Preliminary Results for this administrative review were published on May 23, 2008. In the Preliminary Results , the Department stated that interested parties were to submit case briefs within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal briefs within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. No interested party submitted a case or rebuttal brief.

The Department did not conduct verification in this new shipper review.

No party requested a hearing for this new shipper review.

The period of review (“POR”) covers February 1, 2007, through July 31, 2007.

The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. “Certain Preserved Mushrooms” refers to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. 1

Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms” (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives.

The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

In proceedings involving non-market (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

In the Preliminary Results , we found that Xingda demonstrated its eligibility for separate rate status. We received no comments from interested parties regarding Xingda’s separate rate status. In these final results of review, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this review by Xingda demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to Xingda’s exports of the merchandise under review. Thus, we have determined that Xingda is eligible to receive a separate rate.

No interested parties submitted comments for these final results.

We made no changes to the Preliminary Results.

In new shipper reviews, the Department may, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.107(b), establish a combination cash deposit rate for each combination of the exporter and its supplying producer(s). See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review , 67 FR 72139 at 72140 (December 4, 2002), Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios from Iran , 68 FR 353 at 354 (January 3, 2003), and Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review , 68 FR 351 (January 3, 2002). The Department has determined that a combination rate is appropriate in this case, as Xingda is both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise. Therefore, the Department will include in its cash deposit instructions to CBP appropriate language to enforce these final results of new shipper review on the basis of a combination rate involving Xingda as both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise.

The Department has determined that the following margin exists during the period February 1, 2007, through July 31, 2007:

Pursuant to these final results, the Department determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions for Xingda to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of new shipper review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific (or customer) ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific (or customer) assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of the new shipper review for all shipments of subject merchandise by Xingda entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”): (1) for subject merchandise produced and exported by Xingda, no cash deposit will be required; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Xingda, but not manufactured by Xingda, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate ( i.e. , 198.63 percent); and (3) for subject merchandise manufactured by Xingda, but exported by any party other than Xingda, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. These cash deposit requirements will remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(h).

On June 24, 2008, the Department published its final determinations of sales at less-than-fair-value in the antidumping duty investigations of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea, Mexico and the PRC. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the Republic of Korea , 73 FR 35655 ( Korea Final Determination ); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico , 73 FR 35649; and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China , 73 FR 35652 ( PRC Final Determination ) (all published June 24, 2008).

On July 7, 2008, Nexteel Co., Ltd. (Nexteel), respondent in the Korea investigation, timely alleged a single ministerial error for the Korea Final Results. See “Amendment to the Korea Final Determination,” below.

In response to timely allegations of ministerial errors filed by respondents Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. and Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V., an amended final determination with respect to the Mexico investigation was signed on July 24, 2008, but did not publish in the Federal Register prior to signing of the instant notice.

On July 28, 2008, the Commission notified the Department of its final determination pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of subject merchandise from Korea, Mexico and the PRC.

The merchandise subject to these orders is certain welded carbon quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to these orders is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.

On July 7, 2008, Nexteel, the sole active respondent in the Korea investigation, timely alleged a single ministerial error in the Korea Final Determination . Nexteel contends that the Department inadvertently calculated the company's margin using an outdated cost of production (COP) database. Although the program references the correct database by name, Nexteel states, the actual cost data reflect an earlier superannuated version of Nexteel's cost data. Petitioners did not comment on Nexteel's allegation.

We have determined, in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act, that we did, in fact, make the error as alleged by Nexteel. As a result of substituting the correct COP database, the final determination dumping margin for Nexteel has changed from 1.30 percent to 0.92 percent. This correction does not affect Nexteel's exclusion from the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea, as Nexteel's margin remains de minimis. However, the all-others rate for the Korea investigation has changed from the 15.98 percent published in the Korea Final Determination to 15.79 percent.

On July 28, 2008, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Commission notified the Department of its final determination that the industry in the United States producing light-walled rectangular pipe and tube is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of subject merchandise from Korea, Mexico and the PRC.

In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price or constructed export price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea, Mexico and the PRC. These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 30, 2008, the date on which the Department published its notices of preliminary determination in the Federal Register , with the exception of that merchandise produced by Nexteel Co., Ltd., which is excluded from the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea. See 19 CFR 351.204(e).

With regard to the negative critical circumstances determinations for the PRC, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension, release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit made to secure the payment of antidumping duties with respect to entries of the merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 1, 2007, but before January 30, 2008 ( i.e. , the 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register with respect to the PRC).

On or after the date of publication of the Commission's notice of final determination in the Federal Register , CBP must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated dumping margins as noted below:

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea, Mexico and the PRC, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the Main Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect.

These orders are issued and published in accordance with section 736(a) of Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

On June 24, 2008, the Department published its final determination in the countervailing duty investigation of LWRP from the PRC. See Light Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Investigation Determination , 73 FR 35642 (June 24, 2008).

On July 28, 2008, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination pursuant to sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from the PRC. See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from China , USITC Pub. 4024, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-449 and 731-TA-1118 (Final) (July 2008).

The merchandise that is the subject of this order is certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section (LWR), having a wall thickness of less than 4mm.

The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this order is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

On July 28, 2008, in accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination that the industry in the United States producing LWRP is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of LWRP from the PRC.

Therefore, countervailing duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of LWRP from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 30, 2007, the date on which the Department published its preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination in the Federal Register , 1 and before March 29, 2008, the date the Department instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to discontinue the suspension of liquidation in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act. Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to a preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Therefore, entries of LWRP made on or after March 29, 2008, and prior to the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register are not liable for the assessment of countervailing duties due to the Department's discontinuation, effective March 29, 2008, of the suspension of liquidation.

In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation for LWRP from the PRC, effective the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the Federal Register and to assess, upon further advice by the Department pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the net countervailable subsidy rates for the subject merchandise as noted below.

This notice constitutes the countervailing duty order with respect to LWRP from the PRC, pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect.

This order is issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

Status : The meeting will be open to public participation and will include a 30-minute public comment period on August 21, 8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. (check the USPDC website to confirm this time and the room in which the meeting will be held). In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. Written comments (at least 35 copies) should be received by the USPDC Designated Federal Official (DFO) by August 7, 2008 to provide sufficient time for review. Written comments received after August 7 will be distributed to the USPDC, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.

Matters to be Considered : The USP author team will consider all peer review and public comments received during the USP First Draft review phase, which ends on August 14, 2008. The authors will decide how to address each comment, and plans for completion of the Final Draft of the USP will be developed.

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

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

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

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

On April 10, 2008, NMFS received an application from L-DEO for the taking, by Level B harassment only, of small numbers of 21 species of marine mammals incidental to conducting, under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (NSF), a seismic survey in the northeast Gulf of Alaska (GOA). The proposed cruise will take place in the territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the U.S. and is scheduled to occur from 31 August to 23 September 2008.

The purpose of the proposed seismic survey is to examine crustal structure, fault patterns, and tectonic-climate geohistory of the area. The proposed program will investigate the interplay of climate and tectonics onshore and offshore in an area that includes the world's largest strike-slip earthquakes (Magnitude 8.0 Denali Event), largest earthquake caused uplift (14.4 m or 47 ft in 1962), largest area of seismic uplift (during the 1962 event), highest tsunami (over 200 m or 656 ft in Latoya Bay in 1958), largest temperate glaciers (the Malaspina and Bering Glaciers), and some of the highest sedimentation rates (over 1 m or 3.3 ft per year in some places). Nowhere else on the planet are tectonics and climate interacting to create this combination of mountain building, glacial erosion, strike-slip (California style), and subduction (Japan style) earthquakes.

While affecting a small local population in the past, natural seismic activity in the GOA could influence the whole of the North Pacific basin, which includes many large population centers. Alaska is being directly affected by modern climate change, and new evidence suggests that, as climate changes tectonics respond and vice versa. This interplay could be fundamental to the way the Earth works as a system, and by examining this interplay, the intention of the STEEP program is to examine the feedbacks that drive the system.

The STEEP program is 5 years in length and includes scientists from over 10 universities. The study represents the most comprehensive study of tectonic and climate interactions ever undertaken in a single project. The offshore seismic component is a keystone for the experiment. The data obtained from the seismic survey will be used to determine the history of tectonic-climate interplay, as well as the nature of the Yakutat plate that is causing all of the deformation in southern Alaska, built the Saint Elias Mountains, and started the aggressive glaciation that continues today.

The seismic survey will involve one source vessel, the R/V Marcus G. Langseth ( Langseth ), which will occur offshore from the Saint Elias Mountains. The Langseth will deploy an array of 36 airguns (6,600 in 3 ) as an energy source and, at times, a receiving system consisting of one 8-km (3.7-mi) towed hydrophone streamer. The streamer will be towed at a depth of 7 m (23 ft) and the airguns at 9 m (29.5 ft). The Langseth will also deploy Ocean Bottom Seismometers (OBSs) to receive the returning acoustic signals. The OBSs are housed in 43-cm diameter glass spheres that have a gross weight of approximately 45 kg (99 lbs). As the airgun array is towed along the survey lines, the hydrophone streamer and/or OBSs will receive the returning acoustic signals and transfer the data to the on-board processing system.

The Langseth is expected to depart Prince Rupert, British Columbia, Canada, on approximately 31 August, 2008 for the study area in the GOA (see Figure 1 of L-DEO's application). The airgun array is expected to operate for a total of ~200-250 hours. With OBS deployment and retrieval, the length of the survey will be ~18 days. The overall area within which the STEEP survey will take place is located at ~58-60.5° N, 138-146° W (see Figure 1 of L-DEO's application). The proposed survey will be conducted in water depths from <100 m to >3,000 m (<330 to>9,840 ft) entirely within the territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United States. The exact dates of the activities depend upon logistics, as well as weather conditions and/or the need to repeat some lines if data quality is substandard.

The primary marine seismic survey will consist of two long transect lines that will cross each other (Figure 1 of L-DEO's application). For the longer line paralleling the shoreline, a seismic reflection-refraction profile will be shot using the hydrophone streamer as well as 25 OBSs deployed on the seafloor and 60 Texan seismometers deployed on land across the toe of the Bering Glacier. A reflection-refraction profile will also be obtained from the slightly shorter line that is perpendicular to the shoreline using the hydrophone streamer as well as 17 OBSs; this line will be shot twice if time allows. Both of these lines will have a shot spacing of 50 m (164 ft, 20 seconds); if the onshore-offshore line is shot twice, the shot interval used during the second run will be 150 m (492 ft, 60 s). During the reflection-refraction profiling, the airgun array will be towed at a depth of 9 m. In addition, two reflection-only 2-dimensional (2-D) seismic grids will be shot; the western grid is located approximately 150 km (93 mi) from shore whereas the eastern grid is located nearshore (see Figure 1 in L-DEO's application). The shot spacing for these grids will be 50 m (164 ft) and the airgun array will be towed at a depth of 9 m. No OBSs will be deployed during reflection-only profiling. There will be additional operations associated with equipment testing, startup, line changes, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. In L-DEO's calculations, 25% has been added to the line total for those additional operations.

The planned seismic survey (excluding the 25 percent contingency) will consist of 1909 km of survey lines including turns (see Figure 1 in L-DEO's application). Most of this effort (923 km or 574 mi) will take place in intermediate water depths of 100-1,000 m and in water depths >1,000 m deep (812 km or 504 mi), and a smaller portion (174 km or 108 mi) will take place in water <100 m deep.

All planned geophysical data acquisition activities will be conducted by L-DEO with on-board assistance by the scientists who have proposed the study. The scientific team is headed by Dr. Sean Gullick of the University of Texas at Austin Institute for Geophysics (UTIG) and also includes Drs. G. Christesen, P. Mann, and H. Van Avendonk of UTIG. The vessel will be self-contained, and the crew will live aboard the vessel for the entire cruise.

In addition to the operations of the airgun array, a multibeam echosounder (MBES) will be operated from the Langseth continuously throughout the STEEP cruise. Also, a sub-bottom profiler (SBP) will be operated by the Langseth during most of the survey.

The Langseth has a length of 71.5 m (234.6 ft), a beam of 17 m (55.8 ft), and a maximum draft of 5.9 m (19.4 ft). The ship was designed as a seismic research vessel, with a propulsion system designed to be as quiet as possible to avoid interference with the seismic signals. The ship is powered by two Bergen BRG-6 diesel engines, each producing 3,550 hp, that drive the two propellers directly. Each propeller has four blades, and the shaft typically rotates at 750 rpm. The vessel also has an 800-hp bowthruster. The operation speed during seismic acquisition is typically 7.4-9.3 km/h (4-5 kt). When not towing seismic survey gear, the Langseth can cruise at 20-24 km/h (11-13 kt). The Langseth has a range of 25,000 km (15,534 mi). The Langseth will also serve as the platform from which vessel-based marine mammal (and sea turtle) observers (MMOs) will watch for animals before and during airgun operations.

During the proposed survey, the airgun array to be used will consist of 36 airguns, with a total volume of approximately 6,600 in 3 . The airguns will consist of a mixture of Bolt 1500LL and 1900LL airguns. The airguns array will be configured as four identical linear arrays or “strings” (see Figure 2 in L-DEO's application). Each string will have ten airguns; the first and last airguns in each string are spaced 16 m (52.5 ft) apart. Nine airguns in each string will be fired simultaneously, while the tenth is kept in reserve as a spare, to be turned on in case of failure of another airgun. The four airgun strings will be distributed across an approximate area of 24 x 16 m (78.7 x 52.5 ft) behind the Langseth and will be towed approximately 50-100 m (164-328 ft) behind the vessel at 9-m depth. The firing pressure of the array is 2,000 psi. The airgun array will fire in two modes: every 50 m (164 ft; 20 s) or every 150 m (492 ft; 60 s). During firing, a brief (approximately 0.1 s) pulse of sound is emitted. The airguns will be silent during the intervening periods.

Because the actual source is a distributed sound source (36 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 (265 dB re 1 μPa.m, peak to peak). In addition, the effective source level for sound propagating in near-horizontal directions will be substantially lower than the nominal source level applicable to downward propagation because of the directional nature of the sound from the airgun array.

Sound propagation has been predicted by L-DEO for the 36-airgun array operating in deep, intermediate, and shallow water and for a single 1900LL 40 in 3 airgun (which will be used during power downs), in relation to distance and direction from the airguns (See Table 1). A detailed description of L-DEO's modeling effort is provided in Appendix A of the application.

The Simrad EM120 operates at 11.25-12.6 kHz and is hull-mounted on the Langseth . The beamwidth is 1° fore-aft and 150° athwartship. The maximum source level is 242 dB re 1 μPa (rms; Hammerstad, 2005). For deep-water operation, each “ping” consists of nine successive fan-shaped transmissions, each 15 ms in duration and each ensonifying a section that extends 1° fore-aft. The nine successive transmissions span an overall cross-track angular extent of about 150°, with 16 ms gaps between the pulses for successive sectors. A receiver in the overlap area between the two sectors would receive two 15-ms pulses separated by a 16-ms gap. In shallower water, the pulse duration is reduced to 5 or 2 ms, and the number of transmit beams is also reduced. The ping interval varies with water depth, from approximately 5 s at 1,000 m (3,280 ft) to 20 s at 4,000 m (13,123 ft; Kongsberg Maritime, 2005).

The SBP is normally operated to provide information about the sedimentary features and the bottom topography that is simultaneously being mapped by the MBES. The energy from the SBP is directed downward by a 3.5 kHz transducer in the hull of the Langseth . The output varies with water depth from 50 watts in shallow water to 800 watts in deep water. The pulse interval is 1 s, but a common mode of operation is to broadcast five pulses at 1-s intervals followed by a 5-s pause.

Because the predictions in Table 1 are based in part on empirical correction factors derived from acoustic calibration of different airgun configurations than those to be used on the Langseth (cf. Tolstoy et al. , 2004a,b), L-DEO conducted an acoustic calibration study of the Langseth 's 36-airgun (approximately 6,600 in 3 ) array in late 2007/early 2008 in the Gulf of Mexico (LGL Ltd. 2006). Distances where sound levels (e.g., 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 μPa rms) were received in deep, intermediate, and shallow water will be determined for various airgun configurations. Acoustic data analysis is ongoing. After, analysis, the empirical data from the 2007/2008 calibration study will be used to refine the exclusion zones proposed above for use during the STEEP cruise, if the data are appropriate and available for use at the time of the survey.

A total of 18 cetacean species, 3 species of pinnipeds, and the sea otter are known to or could occur in the GOA study area (see Table 2 of the application; Angliss and Outlaw, 2007). Several of the species are listed as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), including the humpback, sei, fin, blue, North Pacific right, and sperm whale, sea otter, and the western stock of Steller sea lions. The eastern stock of Steller sea lions is listed as Threatened. The southeast Alaska Distinct Population Segment of northern sea otters are also listed as Threatened. There is little information on the distribution of marine mammals inhabiting the waters offshore of SE Alaska or the eastern GOA, although a few reports are available (e.g., Buckland et al. , 1993; Hobbs and Lerczak, 1993; Straley et al. 1995; Calambokidis et al. , 1997; MacLean and Koski, 2005; Angliss and Outlaw, 2007).

The marine mammals that occur in the proposed survey area belong to four taxonomic groups: odontocetes (toothed cetaceans such as dolphins), mysticetes (baleen whales), pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), and fissipeds (the sea otter). Cetaceans and pinnipeds are managed by NMFS and are the subject of this IHA application. Several of the 18 cetacean species are common in the area (see below). Of the three species of pinnipeds that potentially could occur in the study area, only the Steller sea lion and harbor seal are likely to be present. The northern fur seal inhabits the Bering Sea during the summer, and is generally found in SE Alaska in low numbers during the winter and during the northward migration in the spring. Sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Informal consultation with the USFWS is being sought for sea otters.

Information on the occurrence, distribution, population size, habitat, and conservation status for each of the 21 marine mammal species that are likely to occur in the proposed project area is presented in Table 5 of L-DEO's application and is reprinted in part here as Table 2.

Based on a compilation of data from 1979 to 2001, many cetaceans and pinnipeds occur within the EEZ in both oceanic and coastal waters. However, beaked, sperm, dwarf/pygmy sperm, and baleen whales (except for the humpback) occur predominantly in oceanic waters (May-Collado et al. , 2005). Bottlenose and pantropical spotted dolphins, as well as the humpback whale, tend to be coastal.

Table 2 below outlines the cetacean and pinniped species, their habitat and abundance in the proposed project area, and the requested take levels. Additional information regarding the distribution of these species expected to be found in the project area and how the estimated densities were calculated may be found in L-DEO's application.

The effects of sounds from airguns might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbances, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson et al. , 1995; Gordon et al. , 2004; Nowacek et al. , 2007; Southall et al. , 2007). Permanent hearing impairment, in the unlikely event that it occurred, would constitute injury, but temporary threshold shift (TTS) is not an injury (Southall et al. 2007). With the possible exception of some cases of temporary threshold shift in harbor seals, it is unlikely that the project would result in any cases of temporary or especially permanent hearing impairment, or any significant non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Some behavioral disturbance is expected, but this would be localized and short-term.

The rms (root mean square) received levels that are used as impact criteria for marine mammals are not directly comparable to the peak or peak-to-peak values normally used to characterize source levels of airgun arrays. The measurement units used to describe airgun sources, peak or peak-to-peak decibels, are always higher than the rms decibels referred to in biological literature. A measured received level of 160 dB rms in the far field would typically correspond to a peak measurement of approximately 170 to 172 dB, and to a peak-to-peak measurement of approximately 176 to 178 dB, as measured for the same pulse received at the same location (Greene, 1997; McCauley et al. , 1998, 2000a). The precise difference between rms and peak or peak-to-peak values depends on the frequency content and duration of the pulse, among other factors. However, the rms level is always lower than the peak or peak-to-peak level for an airgun-type source.

Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from airguns are often readily detectable in the water at distances of many kilometers. For a summary of the characteristics of airgun pulses, see Appendices B ) of L-DEO's application. Numerous studies have shown that marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers from operating seismic vessels often show no apparent response see Appendix C (e) of the application. That is often true even in cases when the pulsed sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity of the mammal group. Although various baleen whales, toothed whales, and (less frequently) pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally to airgun pulses under some conditions, at other times, mammals of all three types have shown no overt reactions. In general, pinnipeds usually seem to be more tolerant of exposure to airgun pulses than are cetaceans, with relative responsiveness of baleen and toothed whales being variable.

Obscuring of sounds of interest by interfering sounds, generally at similar frequencies, is known as masking. Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are few specific data of relevance. Because of the intermittent nature and low duty cycle of seismic pulses, animals can emit and receive sounds in the relatively quiet intervals between pulses. Some baleen and toothed whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses. The airgun sounds are pulsed, with quiet periods between the pulses, and whale calls often can be heard between the seismic pulses (Richardson et al. , 1986; McDonald et al. , 1995; Greene et al. , 1999; Nieukirk et al. , 2004; Smultea et al. , 2004). 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 more recent study reports that sperm whales off northern Norway continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses (Madsen et al. , 2002). That has also been shown during recent work in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea (Smultea et al. , 2004; Tyack et al. , 2006). Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be negligible in the case of the small odontocetes given the intermittent nature of seismic pulses. Dolphins and porpoises commonly are heard calling while airguns are operating (Gordon et al. , 2004; Smultea et al. , 2004; Holst et al. , 2005a,b). Also, the sounds important to small odontocetes are predominantly at much higher frequencies than the airgun sounds, thus further limiting the potential for masking. Masking effects, in general, are discussed further in Appendix B (d) of L-DEO's application.

Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors. If a marine mammal responds to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the response may or may not rise to the level of “harassment,” let alone affect the stock or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially be significant. Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of noise on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many mammals are likely to be present within a particular distance of industrial activities, or exposed to a particular level of industrial sound. This practice potentially overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that are affected in some biologically-important manner.

The sound exposure thresholds that affect marine mammals behaviorally are based on behavioral observations during studies of several species. However, information is lacking for many species. Detailed studies have been done on humpback, gray, and bowhead whales and on ringed seals. Less detailed data are available for some other species of baleen whales, sperm whales, and small toothed whales.

Baleen Whales - Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating airguns, but avoidance radii are quite variable. Whales are often reported to show no overt reactions to pulses from large arrays of airguns at distances beyond a few kilometers, even though the airgun pulses remain well above ambient noise levels out to much longer distances. However, as reviewed in Appendix B (e) of L-DEO's application, baleen whales exposed to strong noise pulses from airguns often react by deviating from their normal migration route and/or interrupting their feeding activities and moving away from the sound source. In the case of the migrating gray and bowhead whales, the observed changes in behavior appeared to be of little or no biological consequence to the animals. They simply avoided the sound source by displacing their migration route to varying degrees, but within the natural boundaries of the migration corridors.

Studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have determined that received levels of pulses in the 160-170 dB re 1 μPa rms range seem to cause obvious avoidance behavior in a substantial fraction of the animals exposed. In many areas, seismic pulses from large arrays of airguns diminish to those levels at distances ranging from 4.5-14.5 km (2.8-9 mi) from the source. A substantial proportion of the baleen whales within those distances may show avoidance or other strong disturbance reactions to the airgun array. Subtle behavioral changes sometimes become evident at somewhat lower received levels.

Responses of humpback whales to seismic surveys have been studied during migration and on the summer feeding grounds, and there has also been discussion of effects on the Brazilian wintering grounds. McCauley et al. (1998, 2000) studied the responses of humpback whales off Western Australia to a full-scale seismic survey with a 16-airgun, 2,678-in 3 array, and to a single 20-in 3 airgun with a source level of 227 dB re 1 μPa m peak-to-peak. McCauley et al. (1998) documented that initial avoidance reactions began at 5-8 km (3.1-5 mi) from the array, and that those reactions kept most pods approximately 3-4 km (1.9-2.5 mi) from the operating seismic boat. McCauley et al. (2000) noted localized displacement during migration of 4-5 km (2.5-3.1 mi) by traveling pods and 7-12 km (4.3-7.5 mi) by cow-calf pairs. Avoidance distances with respect to the single airgun were smaller (2 km (1.2 mi)) but consistent with the results from the full array in terms of received sound levels. Mean avoidance distance from the airgun corresponded to a received sound level of 140 dB re 1 μPa (rms); that was the level at which humpbacks started to show avoidance reactions to an approaching airgun. The standoff range, i.e., the closest point of approach of the whales to the airgun, corresponded to a received level of 143 dB re 1 μPa (rms). However, some individual humpback whales, especially males, approached within distances of 100-400 m (328-1,312 ft), where the maximum received level was 179 dB re 1 μPa (rms).

Humpback whales on their summer feeding grounds in southeast summering in southeast Alaska did not exhibit persistent avoidance when exposed to seismic pulses from a 1.64-L (100 in 3 ) airgun (Malme et al. , 1985). Some humpbacks seemed “startled” at received levels of 150-169 dB re 1 μPa on an approximate rms basis. Malme et al. (1985) concluded that there was no clear evidence of avoidance, despite the possibility of subtle effects, at received levels up to 172 re 1 μPa on an approximate rms basis.

It has been suggested that South Atlantic humpback whales wintering off Brazil may be displaced or even strand upon exposure to seismic surveys (Engel et al. , 2004). The evidence for this was circumstantial, subject to alternative explanations (IAGC 2004), and not consistent with results from direct studies of humpbacks exposed to seismic surveys in other areas and seasons. After allowance for data from subsequent years, there was “no observable direct correlation” between strandings and seismic surveys (IWC 2007:236).

Results from bowhead whales show that responsiveness of baleen whales to seismic surveys can be quite variable depending on the activity (migrating vs. feeding) of the whales. Bowhead whales migrating west across the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in autumn, in particular, are unusually responsive, with substantial avoidance occurring out to distances of 20 30 km (12.4-18.6 mi) from a medium-sized airgun source, where received sound levels were on the order of 130 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (Miller et al. , 1999; Richardson et al. , 1999; see Appendix B (e) of L-DEO's application). However, more recent research on bowhead whales (Miller et al. , 2005a; Harris et al. , 2007) corroborates earlier evidence that, during the summer feeding season, bowheads are not as sensitive to seismic sources. In summer, bowheads typically begin to show avoidance reactions at a received level of about 160 170 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (Richardson et al. , 1986; Ljungblad et al. , 1988; Miller et al. , 2005a). Nonetheless, statistical analysis showed evidence of subtle changes in surfacing, respiration and diving cycles when feeding bowheads were exposed to lower-level pulses from distant seismic operations (Richardson et al. , 1986).

Reactions of migration and feeding (but not wintering) gray whales to seismic surveys have been studied. Malme et al. (1986, 1988) studied the responses of feeding Eastern Pacific gray whales to pulses from a single 100 in 3 airgun off St. Lawrence Island in the northern Bering Sea. Malme et al. (1986, 1988) estimated, based on small sample sizes, that 50 percent of feeding gray whales ceased feeding at an average received pressure level of 173 dB re 1 μPa on an (approximate) rms basis, and that 10 percent of feeding whales interrupted feeding at received levels of 163 dB. Those findings were generally consistent with the results of experiments conducted on larger numbers of gray whales that were migrating along the California coast (Malme et al. , 1984; Malme and Miles, 1985), and with observations of Western Pacific gray whales feeding off Sakhalin Island, Russia, when a seismic survey was underway just offshore of their feeding area (Gailey et al. , 2007; Johnson et al. , 2007; Yazvenko et al. 2007a,b).

Various species of Balaenoptera (blue, sei, fin, and minke whales) have occasionally been reported in areas ensonified by airgun pulses. Sightings by observers on seismic vessels off the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2000 suggest that, at times of good sightability, numbers of rorquals seen are similar when airguns are shooting and not shooting (Stone, 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006). Although individual species did not show any significant displacement in relation to seismic activity, all baleen whales combined were found to remain significantly further from the airguns during shooting compared with periods without shooting (Stone, 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006). In a study off Nova Scotia, Moulton and Miller (in press) found only a little or no difference in sighting rates and initial sighting distances of balaenopterid whales when airguns were operating vs. silent. However, there were indications that these whales were more likely to be moving away when seen during airgun operations.

Data on short-term reactions (or lack of reactions) of cetaceans to impulsive noises do not necessarily provide information about long-term effects. It is not known whether impulsive noises affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use in subsequent days or years. However, gray whales continued to migrate annually along the west coast of North America despite intermittent seismic exploration and much ship traffic in that area for decades (see Appendix A in Malme et al. , 1984). The western Pacific gray whale population did not seem affected by a seismic survey in its feeding ground during a prior year (Johnson et al. , 2007). Bowhead whales continued to travel to the eastern Beaufort Sea each summer despite seismic exploration in their summer and autumn range for many years (Richardson et al. , 1987). In any event, brief exposures to sound pulses from the proposed airgun source are highly unlikely to result in prolonged effects.

Toothed Whales - Little systematic information is available about reactions of toothed whales to noise pulses. Few studies similar to the more extensive baleen whale/seismic pulse work summarized above have been reported for toothed whales. However, a systematic study on sperm whales has been done ( Jochens and Biggs, 2003; Tyack et al. , 2003; Jochens et al. , 2006; Miller et al. , 2006), and there is an increasing amount of information about responses of various odontocetes to seismic surveys based on monitoring studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; Smultea et al. , 2004; Moulton and Miller, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006; Holst et al. , 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006).

Seismic operators and marine mammal observers sometimes see dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, but in general there seems to be a tendency for most delphinids to show some limited avoidance of seismic vessels operating large airgun systems. However, some dolphins seem to be attracted to the seismic vessel and floats, and some ride the bow wave of the seismic vessel even when large airgun arrays are firing. Nonetheless, there have been indications that small toothed whales sometimes tend to head away or to maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel, when a large array of airguns is operating than when it is silent (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006). In most cases, the avoidance radii for delphinids appear to be small, on the order of 1 km (0.62 mi) or less. The beluga may be a species that (at least at times) shows long-distance avoidance of seismic vessels. Aerial surveys during seismic operations in the southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded much lower sighting rates of beluga whales within 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) of an active seismic vessel. These results were consistent with the low number of beluga sightings reported by observers aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting that some belugas might be avoiding the seismic operations at distances of 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) (Miller et al. , 2005a).

Captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys (Finneran et al. , 2000, 2002, 2005; Finneran and Schlundt, 2004). The animals tolerated high received levels of sound (pk-pk level >200 dB re 1 μPa) before exhibiting aversive behaviors. For pooled data at 3, 10, and 20 kHz, sound exposure levels during sessions with 25, 50, and 75 percent altered behavior were 180, 190, and 199 dB re 1 μPa 2 , respectively (Finneran and Schlundt, 2004).

Results for porpoises depend on species. Dall's porpoises seem relatively tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean and Koski, 2005) and, during a survey with a large airgun array, tolerated higher noise levels than did harbor porpoises and gray whales (Bain and Williams, 2006). However, Dall's porpoises do respond to the approach of large airgun arrays by moving away (Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Bain and Williams, 2006). The limited available data suggest that harbor porpoises show stronger avoidance (Stone, 2003; Bain and Williams, 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006). This apparent difference in responsiveness of these two porpoise species is consistent with their relative responsiveness to boat traffic and some other acoustic sources in general (Richardson et al. , 1995; Southall et al. 2007).

Most studies of sperm whales exposed to airgun sounds indicate that this species shows considerable tolerance of airgun pulses. In most cases, the whales do not show strong avoidance and continue to call (see Appendix B of L-DEO's application). However, controlled exposure experiments in the Gulf of Mexico indicate that foraging effort is somewhat reduced upon exposure to airgun pulses from a seismic vessel operating in the area, and there may be a delay in diving to foraging depth (Miller et al. , 2006; Tyack et al. , 2006).

There are no specific data on the behavioral reactions of beaked whales to seismic surveys. Most beaked whales tend to avoid approaching vessels of other types (Wursig et al. , 1998). They may also dive for an extended period when approached by a vessel (Kasuya, 1986). It is likely that these beaked whales would normally show strong avoidance of an approaching seismic vessel, but this has not been documented explicitly.

Odontocete reactions to large arrays of airguns are variable and, at least for delphinids and Dall's porpoises, seem to be confined to a smaller radius than has been observed for the more responsive of the mysticetes, belugas, and harbor porpoises (Appendix B of L-DEO's application).

Pinnipeds - Pinnipeds are not likely to show a strong avoidance reaction to the airgun sources that will be used. Visual monitoring from seismic vessels, usually employing larger sources, has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds, and only slight (if any) changes in behavior (see Appendix B(e) of L-DEO's application). Ringed seals frequently do not avoid the area within a few hundred meters of operating airgun arrays (Harris et al. , 2001; Moulton and Lawson, 2002; Miller et al. , 2005a). However, initial telemetry work suggests that avoidance and other behavioral reactions by two other species of seals to small airgun sources may at times be stronger than evident to date from visual studies of pinniped reactions to airguns (Thompson et al. , 1998). Even if reactions of any pinnipeds that might be encountered in the present study area are as strong as those evident in the telemetry study, reactions are expected to be confined to relatively small distances and durations, with no long-term effects on pinniped individuals or populations.

Additional details on the behavioral reactions (or the lack thereof) by all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels can be found in Appendix B (e) of L-DEO's application.

Temporary or permanent hearing impairment is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very strong sounds, but there has been no specific documentation of this for marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses.

NMFS will be developing new noise exposure criteria for marine mammals that take account of the now-available scientific data on TTS, the expected offset between the TTS and permanent threshold shift (PTS) thresholds, differences in the acoustic frequencies to which different marine mammal groups are sensitive, and other relevant factors. Detailed recommendations for new science-based noise exposure criteria were published in early 2008 (Southall et al. , 2007).

Several aspects of the planned monitoring and mitigation measures for this project (see below) are designed to detect marine mammals occurring near the airguns to avoid exposing them to sound pulses that might, at least in theory, cause hearing impairment. In addition, many cetaceans are likely to show some avoidance of the area with high received levels of airgun sound (see above). In those cases, the avoidance responses of the animals themselves will reduce or (most likely) avoid any possibility of hearing impairment.

Non-auditory physical effects may also occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in mammals close to a strong sound source include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, 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. However, as discussed below, there is no definitive evidence that any of these effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large arrays of airguns. It is especially unlikely that any effects of these types would occur during the present project given the brief duration of exposure of any given mammal and the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures (see below). The following subsections discuss in somewhat more detail the possibilities of Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS), Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS), and non-auditory physical effects.

Temporary Threshold Shift - TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. At least in terrestrial mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly after exposure to the noise ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound. Available data on TTS in marine mammals are summarized in Southall et al. (2007).

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, 2005). Given the available data, the received level of a single seismic pulse (with no frequency weighting) might need to be approximately 186 dB re 1 μPa 2. s (i.e., 186 dB SEL or approximately 221-226 dB pk-pk) in order to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several strong seismic pulses that each have received levels near 175-180 dB SEL 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. The distance from the Langseth 's airguns at which the received energy level (per pulse) would be expected to be ≥175-180 dB SEL are the distances shown in the 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) column in Table 3 of L-DEO's application and Table 1 above (given that the rms level is approximately 10-15 dB higher than the SEL value for the same pulse). Seismic pulses with received energy levels ≥175-180 dB SEL (190 dB re 1 μPa (rms)) are expected to be restricted to radii no more than 140-200 m (459-656 ft) around the airguns. The specific radius depends on the number of airguns, the depth of the water, and the tow depth of the airgun array. For an odontocete closer to the surface, the maximum radius with ≥175-180 dB SEL or ≥190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) would be smaller.

The above TTS information for odontocetes is derived from studies on the bottlenose dolphin and beluga. There is not published TTS information for other types of cetaceans. However, preliminary evidence from harbor porpoise exposed to airgun sound suggests that its TTS threshold may have been lower (Lucke et al. 2007).

For baleen whales, there are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound required to induce TTS. The frequencies to which baleen whales are most sensitive are lower than those for odontocetes, and natural background noise levels at those low frequencies tend to be higher. As a result, auditory thresholds of baleen whales within their frequency band of best hearing are believed to be higher (less sensitive) than are those of odontocetes at their best frequencies (Clark and Ellison, 2004). From this, it is suspected that received levels causing TTS onset may also be higher in baleen whales. In any event, no cases of TTS are expected given three considerations: (1) the relatively low abundance of baleen whales expected in the planned study areas; (2) the strong likelihood that baleen whales would avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels high enough for there to be any possibility of TTS; and (3) the mitigation measures that are planned.

In pinnipeds, TTS thresholds associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of underwater sound have not been measured. Initial evidence from prolonged (non-pulse) exposures suggested that some pinnipeds may incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations (Kastak et al. , 1999, 2005; Ketten et al. , 2001; Au et al. , 2000). The TTS threshold for pulsed sounds has been indirectly estimated as being an SEL of approximately 171 dB re 1 μPa 2. s (Southall et al. , 2007), which would be equivalent to a single pulse with received level approximately 181-186 re 1 μPa (rms), or a series of pulses for which the highest rms values are a few dB lower. Corresponding values for California sea lions and northern elephant seals are likely to be higher (Kastak et al. , 2005).

A marine mammal within a radius of less than 100 m (328 ft) around a typical large array of operating airguns might be exposed to a few seismic pulses with levels of greater than or equal to 205 dB, and possibly more pulses if the mammal moved with the seismic vessel. (As noted above, 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 large airgun arrays, should allow cetaceans to move away form the seismic source and to avoid being exposed to the full acoustic output of the airgun array. Even with a large airgun array, it is unlikely that the 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. The potential for TTS is much lower in this project. With a large array of airguns, TTS would be most 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 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 mild, temporary, and reversible.

To avoid the potential for injury, NMFS has determined that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding, respectively, 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). As summarized above, data that are now available imply that TTS is unlikely to occur unless odontocetes (and probably mysticetes as well) are exposed to airgun pulses stronger than 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms).

Permanent Threshold Shift - 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.

There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large arrays of airguns. However, given the possibility that mammals close to an airgun array might incur TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage in terrestrial mammals. Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at a received sound level at least several decibels above that inducing mild TTS if the animal were exposed to strong sound pulses with rapid rise time (see Appendix B (f) of L-DEO's application). The specific difference between the PTS and TTS thresholds has not been measured for marine mammals exposed to any sound type. However, based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such as airgun pulses as received close to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis.

On an SEL basis, Southall et al. (2007) estimated that received levels would need to exceed the TTS threshold by at least 15 dB for there to be risk of PTS. Thus, for cetaceans they estimate that the PTS threshold might be a cumulative SEL (for the sequence of received pulses) of approximately 198 dB re 1 μPa 2. s. Additional assumptions had to be made to derive a corresponding estimate for pinnipeds. Southall et al. (2007) estimate that the PTS threshold could be a cumulative SEL of approximately 186 dB 1 Pa2 s in the harbor seal; for the California sea lion and northern elephant seal the PTS threshold would probably be higher. Southall et al. (2007) also note that, regardless of the SEL, there is concern about the possibility of PTS if a cetacean or pinniped receives one or more pulses with peak pressure exceeding 230 or 218 dB re 1 μPa (3.2 bar . m, 0-pk), which would only be found within a few meters of the largest (360-in 3 ) airguns in the planned airgun array (Caldwell and Dragoset, 2000). A peak pressure of 218 dB re 1 μPa could be received somewhat farther away; to estimate that specific distance, one would need to apply a model that accurately calculates peak pressures in the near-field around an array of airguns.

Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS could occur. In fact, even the levels immediately adjacent to the airguns may not be sufficient to induce PTS, especially because a mammal would not be exposed to more than one strong pulse unless it swam immediately alongside the airgun for a period longer than the inter-pulse interval. Baleen whales generally avoid the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other marine mammals. The planned monitoring and mitigation measures, including visual monitoring, passive acoustic monitoring (PAM), power downs, and shut downs of the airguns when mammals are seen within the EZ will minimize the already minimal probability of exposure of marine mammals to sounds strong enough to induce PTS.

Non-auditory Physiological Effects - Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al. , 2006.; Southall et al. , 2007). However, studies examining such effects are limited. 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, when sound is strongly channeled with less-than-normal propagation loss, or when dispersal of the animals is constrained by shorelines, shallows, etc. Airgun pulses, because of their brevity and intermittence, are less likely to trigger resonance or bubble formation than are more prolonged sounds. It is doubtful that any single marine mammal would be exposed to strong seismic sounds for time periods long enough to induce physiological stress.

Until recently, it was assumed that diving marine mammals are not subject to the bends or air embolism. This possibility was first explored at a workshop (Gentry [ed.], 2002) held to discuss whether a stranding of beaked whales in the Bahamas in 2000 (Balcomb and Claridge, 2001; NOAA and USN, 2001) might have been related to bubble formation in tissues caused by exposure to noise from naval sonar. However, this link could not be confirmed. Jepson et al. (2003) first suggested a possible link between mid-frequency sonar activity and acute chronic tissue damage that results from the formation in vivo of gas bubbles, based on a beaked whale stranding in the Canary Islands in 2002 during naval exercises. Fernandez et al. (2005a) showed those beaked whales did indeed have gas bubble-associated lesions, as well as fat embolisms. Fernandez et al. (2005b) also found evidence of fat embolism in three beaked whales that stranded 100 km (62 mi) north of the Canaries in 2004 during naval exercises. Examinations of several other stranded species have also revealed evidence of gas and fat embolisms (Arbelo et al. , 2005; Jepson et al. , 2005a; Mendez et al. , 2005). Most of the afflicted species were deep divers. There is speculation that gas and fat embolisms may occur if cetaceans ascend unusually quickly when exposed to aversive sounds, or if sound in the environment causes the destablization of existing bubble nuclei (Potter, 2004; Arbelo et al. , 2005; Fernandez et al. 2005a; Jepson et al. , 2005b; Cox et al. , 2006). Even if gas and fat embolisms can occur during exposure to mid-frequency sonar, there is no evidence that that type of effect occurs in response to airgun sounds.

In general, little is known about the potential for seismic survey sounds to cause auditory impairment or other physical effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all, would be limited to within short distances of the sound source and probably to projects involving large arrays of airguns. The available data do not allow for meaningful quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be affected in those ways. Marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance of seismic vessels, including most baleen whales, some odontocetes, and some pinnipeds, are especially unlikely to incur auditory impairment or non-auditory physical effects. It is not known whether aversive behavioral responses to airgun pulses by deep-diving species could lead to indirect physiological problems as apparently can occur upon exposure of some beaked whales to mid-frequency sonar (Cox et al. , 2006). Also, the planned mitigation measures, including shut downs of the airguns, will reduce any such effects that might otherwise occur.

Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosives can be killed or severely injured, and their auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten et al. , 1993; Ketten 1995). Airgun pulses are less energetic and have slower rise times, and there is no proof that they can cause injury, death, or stranding even in the case of large airgun arrays. However, the association of mass strandings of beaked whales with naval exercises and, in one case, an L-DEO seismic survey, has raised the possibility that beaked whales exposed to strong pulsed sounds may be especially susceptible to injury and/or behavioral reactions that can lead to stranding. Appendix B(g) of LDEO's application provides addition details.

Seismic pulses and mid-frequency sonar pulses are quite different. Sounds produced by airgun arrays are broadband with most of the energy below 1 kHz. Typical military mid-frequency sonars operate at frequencies of 2-10 kHz, generally with a relatively narrow bandwidth at any one time. Thus, it is not appropriate to assume that there is a direct connection between the effects of military sonar and seismic surveys on marine mammals. However, evidence that sonar pulses can, in special circumstances, lead to physical damage and mortality (Balcomb and Claridge, 2001; NOAA and USN, 2001; Jepson et al. , 2003; Fernandez et al. , 2004, 2005a; Cox et al. , 2006), even if only indirectly, suggests that caution is warranted when dealing with exposure of marine mammals to any high-intensity pulsed sound.

There is no conclusive evidence of cetacean strandings as a result of exposure to seismic surveys. Speculation concerning a possible link between seismic surveys and strandings of humpback whales in Brazil (Engel et al. , 2004) was not well founded based on available data (IAGC, 2004; IWC, 2006). In September 2002, there was a stranding of two Cuvier's beaked whales in the Gulf of California, Mexico, when the L-DEO vessel Ewing was operating a 20-gun, 8,490-in 3 array in the general area. The link between the stranding and the seismic survey was inconclusive and not based on any physical evidence (Hogarth, 2002; Yoder, 2002). Nonetheless, that plus the incidents involving beaked whale strandings near naval exercises involving use of mid-frequency sonar suggests a need for caution when conducting seismic surveys in areas occupied by beaked whales. No injuries of beaked whales are anticipated during the proposed study because of (1) the high likelihood that any beaked whales nearby would avoid the approaching vessel before being exposed to high sound levels, (2) the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, and (3) differences between the sound sources operated by L-DEO and those involved in the naval exercises associated with strandings.

The Simrad EM 120 12-kHz MBES will be operated from the source vessel at some times during the planned study. Sounds from the MBES are very short pulses, occurring for 15 ms once every 5-20 s, depending on water depth. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by the MBES is at frequencies centered at 12 kHz, and the maximum source level is 242 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The beam is narrow (1°) in fore-aft extent and wide (150°) in the cross-track extent. Each ping consists of nine successive fan-shaped transmissions (segments) at different cross-track angles. Any given mammal at depth near the trackline would be in the main beam for only one or two of the nine segments. Also, marine mammals that encounter the MBES are unlikely to be subjected to repeated pulses because of the narrow fore-aft width of the beam and will receive only limited amounts of pulse energy because of the short pulses. Animals close to the ship (where the beam is narrowest) are especially unlikely to be ensonified for more than one 2-15 ms pulse (or two pulses if in the overlap area). Similarly, Kremser et al. (2005) noted that the probability of a cetacean swimming through the area of exposure when an MBES emits a pulse is small. The animal would have to pass the transducer at close range and be swimming at speeds similar to the vessel in order in order to receive the multiple pulses that might result in sufficient exposure to cause TTS. Burkhardt et al. (2007) concluded that immediate direct auditory injury was possible only if a cetacean dived under the vessel into the immediate vicinity of the transducer.

Navy sonars that have been linked to avoidance reactions and stranding of cetaceans (1) generally have a longer pulse duration that the Simrad EM120, and (2) are often directed close to horizontally vs. more downward for the MBES.. The area of possible influence of the MBES is much smaller a narrow band below the source vessel. The duration of exposure for a given marine mammal can be much longer for a Navy sonar.

Marine mammal communications will not be masked appreciably by the MBES signals given its low duty cycle and the brief period when an individual mammal is likely to be within its beam. Furthermore, in the case of baleen whales, the signals (12 kHz) do not overlap with the predominant frequencies in the calls, which would avoid significant masking.

Behavioral reactions of free-ranging marine mammals to sonars and other sound sources 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. During exposure to a 21-25 kHz whale-finding sonar with a source level of 215 dB re 1 μPa, gray whales showed slight avoidance (approximately 200 m; 656 ft) behavior (Frankel, 2005). However, all of those observations are of limited relevance to the present situation. Pulse durations from those sonars were much longer than those of the MBES, 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 s pulsed sounds at frequencies similar to those that will be emitted by the MBES 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; Finneran and Schlundt, 2004). The relevance of those data to free-ranging odontocetes is uncertain, and in any case, the test sounds were quite different in either duration or bandwidth as compared with those from an MBES.

L-DEO is not aware of any data on the reactions of pinnipeds to sonar or echosounder sounds at frequencies similar to the 12 kHz frequency of the Langseth 's MBES. Based on observed pinniped responses to other types of pulsed sounds, and the likely brevity of exposure to the MBES sounds, pinniped reactions are expected to be limited to startle or otherwise brief responses of no lasting consequence to the animals.

NMFS believes that the brief exposure of marine mammals to one pulse, or small numbers of signals, from the MBES are not likely to result in the harassment of marine mammals.

A SBP will be operated from the source vessel during the planned study. Sounds from the SBP are very short pulses, occurring for 1-4 ms once every second. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by the SBP is at mid frequencies, centered at 3.5 kHz. The beamwidth is approximately 30° and is directed downward. The SBP on the Langseth has a maximum source level of 204 dB re 1 μPam. Kremser et al. (2005) noted that the probability of a cetacean swimming through the area of exposure when a bottom profiler emits a pulse is small, and if the animal was in the area, it would have to pass the transducer at close range in order to be subjected to sound levels that could cause TTS.

Marine mammal communications will not be masked appreciably by the SBP signals given their directionality and the brief period when an individual mammal is likely to be within its beam. Furthermore, in the case of most odontocetes, the signals do not overlap with the predominant frequencies in the calls, which would avoid significant masking.

Marine mammal behavioral reactions to other pulsed sound sources are discussed above, and responses to the SBP are likely to be similar to those for other pulsed sources if received at the same levels. The pulsed signals from the SBP are somewhat weaker than those from the MBES. Therefore, behavioral responses are not expected unless marine mammals are very close to the source.

It is unlikely that the SBP 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 SBP 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 SBP. 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 other sources would further reduce or eliminate any minor effects of the SBP.

NMFS believes that to avoid the potential for permanent physiological damage (Level A Harassment), cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding, respectively, 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The precautionary nature of these criteria is discussed in Appendix B (f) of L-DEO's application, including the fact that 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 temporary threshold shift (TTS) and the level associated with the onset of TTS is often considered to be a level below which there is no danger of permanent damage. NMFS also assumes that cetaceans or pinnipeds exposed to levels exceeding 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) may experience Level B Harassment.

All anticipated takes would be “takes by harassment”, involving temporary changes in behavior. The proposed mitigation measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious takes. The sections below describe methods to estimate “take by harassment”, and present estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that might be affected during the proposed Gulf of Alaska seismic survey. The estimates of “take by harassment” are based on consideration of the number of marine mammals that are exposed to certain received sound levels by approximately 2,386 km of seismic surveys in the Gulf of Alaska. The main sources of distributional and numerical data used in deriving the estimates are described below.

Empirical data concerning 190-, 180-, 170-, and 160 dB re 1 μPa isopleth distances in deep and shallow water were acquired for various airgun configurations during the acoustic calibration study of the R/V Maurice Ewing 's ( Ewing ) 20-airgun 8,600 in 3 array in 2003 (Tolstoy et al. , 2004a,b). The results showed that radii around the airguns where the received level was 180 dB re 1 μPa rms, the threshold for estimating level B harassment applicable to cetaceans (NMFS 2000), varied with water depth. Similar depth-related variation is likely for the 190-dB re 1 μPa threshold for estimating Level B harassment applicable to cetaceans and the 190-dB re 1 μPa threshold applicable to pinnipeds, although these were not measured. The L-DEO model does not allow for bottom interactions, and thus is most directly applicable to deep water and to relatively short ranges.

The empirical data indicated that, for deep water (>1,000 m; 3,280 ft), the L-DEO model (as applied to the Ewing 's airgun configurations) overestimated the measured received sound levels at a given distance (Tolstoy et al. , 2004a,b). However, to be conservative, the distances predicted by L-DEO's model for the survey will be applied to deep-water areas during the proposed study (see Figure 3 and 4 and Table 1 in the application). As very few, if any, mammals are expected to occur deeper than 2,000 m (6,562 ft), this depth was used as the maximum relevant depth.

Empirical measurements of sounds from the Ewing 's airgun arrays were not conducted for intermediate depths (100-1,000 m; 328-3,280 ft). On the expectation that results would be intermediate, the estimates provided by the model for deep-water situations are used to obtain estimates for intermediate-depth sites. Corresponding correction factors, applied to the modeled radii for the Langseth 's airgun configuration, will be used during the proposed study for intermediate depths (see Table 1 of the application).

Empirical measurements near the Ewing indicated that in shallow water (<100 m; 328 ft), the L-DEO model underestimates actual levels. In previous L-DEO projects, the exlusion zones were typically based on measured values and ranged from 1.3 to 15x higher than the modeled values depending on the size of the airgun array and the sound level measured (Tolstoy et al. , 2004b). During the proposed cruise, similar correction factors will be applied to derive appropriate shallow-water radii from the modeled deep-water radii for the Langseth 's airgun configuration (see Table 1 of the application).

Using the modeled distances and various correction factors, Table 1 (from the application) shows the distances at which four rms sound levels are expected to be received from the 36-airgun array and a single airgun in three different water depths.

The anticipated radii of influence of the MBES and the SBP are much smaller than those for the airgun array. It is assumed that, during simultaneous operations of the airgun array and echosounders, marine mammals close enough to be affected by the echosounders would already be affected by the airguns. However, whether or not the airguns are operating simultaneously with the echosounders, marine mammals are not expected to be exposed to sound pressure levels great enough or long enough for taking to occur given echosounders' characteristics (e.g., narrow downward-directed beam) and other considerations described above. Therefore, no additional allowance is included for animals that might be affected by sound sources other than airguns.

There are few systematic data on the numbers and distributions of marine mammals in SE Alaska and the GOA. Zerbini et al. (2003, 2006, 2007) conducted vessel-based surveys in the northern and western GOA from the Kenai Peninsula to the central Aleutian Islands during July-August 2001-2003. Killer whales were the principal target of the surveys, but the abundance and distribution of fin, humpback, and minke whales were also reported. Waite (2003) conducted vessel-based surveys in the northern and western GOA from PWS to approximately 160° W off Alaska Peninsula during 26 June- 15 July 2003; cetaceans recorded included small odontocetes, beaked whales, and mysticetes. The eastern part of Zerbini et al. 's surveys and Waite's survey were confined to water <1,000 m deep, and most effort was in depths <100 m. Dahlheim et al. (2000) conducted aerial surveys of the nearshore waters from Bristol Bay to Dixon Entrance for harbor porpoises; SE Alaska was surveyed during 1-26 June 1993. Dahlheim and Towell (1994) conducted vessel-based surveys of Pacific white-sided dolphins in the inland waterways of SE Alaska during April-May, June or July, and September- early October of 1991-1993. In a report on a seismic cruise in SE Alaska from Dixon Entrance to Kodiak Island during August-September 2004, MacLean and Koski (2005) included density estimates of cetaceans and pinnipeds for each of three depth ranges (<100 m, 100-1,000 m, and >1,000 m) during non-seismic periods.

Most surveys for pinnipeds in Alaskan waters have estimated the number of animals at haul-out sites, not in the water (e.g., Loughlin, 1994; Sease et al. , 2001; Withrow and Cesarone, 2002; Sease and York, 2003). To our knowledge, the estimates of MacLean and Koski (2005) are the only in-water estimates of pinnipeds in the proposed survey area.

Table 7 in L-DEO's application gives the average and maximum densities in each of three depth ranges for each cetacean and pinniped species reported to occur in SE Alaska. The densities from MacLean and Koski (2005) and those calculated from effort and sightings in Dahlheim and Towell (1994) and Waite (2003) have been corrected for both detectability and availability bias using correction factors from Dahlheim et al. (2000) and Koski et al. (1998). Detectability bias is associated with diminishing sightability with increasing lateral distance from the trackline. Availability bias refers to the fact that there is less-than-100 percent probability of sighting an animal that is present along the survey trackline. In determining the estimated numbers, L-DEO used the killer whale and mysticete densities from the easternmost blocks (1-6) surveyed by Zerbini et al. (2006, 2007), the harbor porpoise densities for the SE Alska portion of the areas surveyed by Dahlheim et al. (2000), and only the Pacific white-sided dolphin data from the June or July and September- early October surveys by Dahlheim and Towell (1994). Maps of effort and sightings in Waite (2003) an Zerbini et al. (2006, 2007) were used to roughly allocate effort and sighting between waters <100 m and 100-1,000 m deep as either all or none, most (80 percent), or similar (50 percent).

There is some uncertainty about the representatives of the data and the assumptions used in the calculations below for three main reasons: (1) all but the MacLean and Koski (2005) and Dahlheim and Towell (1994) September-early October surveys were carried out earlier (June-July) than the proposed September survey; (2) the Waite (2003) and Zerbini et al. (20006, 2007) surveys were in the northern and western GOA; and (3) only the MacLean and Koski (2005) surveys included depths >1,000 m, whereas approximately 43 percent of the proposed line-km are in water depths >1,000 m. However, these represent the best available information. Also, to provide some allowance for these uncertainties L-DEO calculated, “maximum estimates” as well as “best estimates” of the densities present and numbers potentially affected. Best estimates of density are effort-weighted mean densities from all previous surveys, whereas maximum estimates of density come from whichever of the individual surveys provided the highest density. Where only one estimate was available, the maximum density was assumed to be the observed (best) density multiplied by 1.5.

For three species, L-DEO's density estimates are much higher than densities expected during the proposed survey. The estimates for humpback and fin whales are based on surveys where large concentrations were sighted in nearshore waters and often inland waterways, viz . Sitka Sound, Icy Strait, and the bottom of Lynn Canal (MacLean and Koski, 2005), and near Kodiak Island (Waite, 2003; Zerbini et al. , 2006). No such concentrations are expected in the proposed survey area. L-DEO's estimates for Dall's porpoise are from vessel-based surveys without seismic survey activity; they are overestimates, possibly by a factor of 5x, given the tendency of this species to approach vessels (Turnock and Quinn, 1991). Noise from the airgun array during the proposed survey is expected to at least reduce and possibly eliminate the tendency to approach the vessel. Dall's porpoises are tolerant of small airgun sources (MacLean and Koski, 2005) and tolerated higher noise levels than other species during a large array survey (Bain and Williams, 2006), but they did respond to that and another large airgun array by moving away (Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Bain and Williams, 2006). Because of these considerable overestimates, the best and maximum estimates in Table 7 of L-DEO's application were halved by L-DEO to calculate numbers exposed. In fact, actual densities are undoubtedly much lower than that.

The estimated numbers of individuals potentially exposed are presented below based on a 160-dB re 1 μPa (rms) Level B harassment exposure threshold for cetaceans and pinnipeds. It is assumed that marine mammals exposed to airgun sounds at these levels might experience disruption of behavioral patterns.

It should be noted that the following estimates of takes by harassment assume that the surveys will be fully completed; in fact, the planned number of line-km has been increased by 25 percent to accomodate lines that may need to be repeated, equipment testing, etc. As is typical during offshore ship surveys, inclement weather and equipment malfunctions are likely to cause delays and may limit the number of useful line-km to seismic operations that can be undertaken. Furthermore, any marine mammal sightings within or near the designated EZ (see will result in the shut down of seismic operations. Thus, the following estimates of the numbers of marine mammals exposed to 160-dB sounds probably overestimate the actual numbers of marine mammals that might be involved. These estimates assume that there will be no weather, equipment, or mitigation delays, which is highly unlikely.

The number of different individuals that may be exposed to airgun sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) on one or more occasions was estimated by considering the total marine area that would be within the 160-dB radius around the operating airgun array on at least one occasion. The proposed seismic lines do not run parallel to each other in close proximity, which minimizes the number of times an individual mammal may be exposed during the survey. Only one transect line is proposed to be surveyed twice, and it is unknown how much time will pass between the first and the second transit. Therefore, some of the same individuals may be approached by the operating airguns and come within the 160-dB distance on up to two occasions. However, this also means that some different marine mammals could occur in the area during the second pass. The line that could be surveyed twice was counted twice in L-DEO's calculations.

For each depth stratum, the number of different individuals potentially exposed to received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) was calculated by multiplying:

• The expected species density, either “mean” (i.e., best estimate) or “maximum”, for a particular water depth, times

• The anticipated minimum area to be ensonified to that level during airgun operations in each water depth stratum.

The same approach was used to estimate exposures of pinnipeds, delphinids, and Dall's porpoise to received levels ≥170 dB.

The area expected to be ensonified was determined by entering the planned survey lines into a MapInfo Geographic Information System (GIS), using the GIS to identify the relevant areas by “drawing” the applicable 160-dB buffer around each seismic line (depending on water and tow depth) and then calculating the total area within the buffers. Areas where overlap occurred (because of intersecting lines) were limited and included only once to determine the area expected to be ensonified.

Applying the approach described above, approximately 28,900 km2 would be within the 160-dB isopleth on one or more occasions during the survey, including the 25 percent added as a contingency. However, this approach does not allow for turnover in the mammal populations in the study area during the course of the study. This might somewhat underestimate actual numbers of individuals exposed, although the conservative (i.e., probably overestimated) line-kilometer distances used to calculate the area may offset this. In addition, the approach assumes that no cetaceans will move away or toward the trackline (as the Langseth approaches) in response to increasing sound levels prior to the time the levels reach 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Another way of interpreting the estimates that follow is that they represent the number of individuals that are expected (in the absence of the seismic activity) to occur in the waters that will be exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms).

The “best estimates” of the numbers of individual marine mammals that could be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the proposed survey is shown in Table 8 of L-DEO's application and Table 3 (shown above). That total includes 49 sperm, 246 humpback, and 89 fin whales, which would represent 0.2 percent, 4.1 percent, and 0.6 percent, respectively, of the regional populations (Table 3). However the numbers of humpback and fin whales exposed are overestimated considerably because the estimated densities are overestimates (see previous section). Dall's porpoise is expected to be the most common species in the study area; the best estimate of the number of Dall's porpoise that could be exposed is 5,379 or 0.5 percent of the regional population (Table 3). This is also an overestimate because the estimated densities are overestimates (see previous section). Estimates for other species are lower (Table 3).

The “maximum estimate” column in Table 3 shows estimates totaling 9,701 marine mammals for the three depth ranges combined. For species that could occur in the study area but were not sighted in the surveys from which density estimates were calculated, the average group size has been used as the maximum estimate.

Based on the “best” densities, 74 threatened Steller sea lions and 269 harbor seals could be exposed to airgun sounds ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), which would represent <0.1 percent for both of the respective regional populations. The “maximum estimate” column in Table 3 shows an estimated 110 Steller sea lions could be exposed to airgun sounds ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The corresponding numbers for harbor seals are 403. LDEO has also included a low maximum estimate for the northern fur seal, a species that could be present, but whose density was not calculated because it was not sighted during the survey of MacLean and Koski (2005). The numbers for which “take authorization” is requested, given in the far right column of Table 3, are based on the maximum 160-dB estimates.

The proposed L-DEO seismic survey in the GOA will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals or to the food sources they use. The main impact issue associated with the proposed activity will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as discussed above. The following sections briefly review effects of airguns on fish and invertebrates, and more details are included in Appendices C and D, respectively, in L-DEO's application.

One reason for the adoption of airguns as the standard energy source for marine seismic surveys was that, unlike explosives, they have not been associated with large-scale fish kills. However, existing information relating to the impacts of seismic surveys on marine fish populations and invertebrate species is very limited (see Appendix C of L-DEO's application). There are three types of potential effects of exposure to seismic surveys: (1) pathological, (2) physiological, and (3) behavioral. Pathological effects include lethal and temporary or permanent sub-lethal injury. Physiological effects involve temporary and permanent primary and secondary stress responses, such as changes in levels of enzymes and proteins. Behavioral effects refer to temporary and (if they occur) permanent changes in exhibited behavior (e.g., startle and avoidance behavior). The three categories are interrelated in complex ways. For example, it is possible that certain physiological and behavioral changes could potentially lead to the ultimate pathological effect on individual animals (i.e., mortality).

The specific received sound levels at which permanent adverse effects to fish potentially occur are little studied and largely unknown. Furthermore the available information on the impacts of seismic surveys on marine fish is from studies of individuals or portions of a population; there have been no studies at the population scale. Thus, available information provides limited insight on possible real-world effects at the ocean or population scale. This makes drawing conclusions about impacts on fish problematic because ultimately, the most important aspect of potential impacts relates to how exposure to seismic survey sound affects marine fish populations and their viability, including their availability to fisheries.

The following sections provide a general synopsis of available information on the effects of exposure to seismic and other anthropogenic sound as relevant to fish and invertebrates. The information comprises results from scientific studies of varying degrees of soundness and some anecdotal information. Some of the data sources may have serious shortcomings in methods, analysis, interpretation, and reproducibility that must be considered when interpreting their results (see Hastings and Popper, 2005). Potential adverse effects of the program's sound sources on marine fish are then noted.

Pathological Effects - The potential for pathological damage to hearing structures in fish depends on the energy level of the received sound and the physiology and hearing capability of the species in question (see Appendix C of L-DEO's application). For a given sound to result in hearing loss, the sound must exceed, by some specific amount, the hearing threshold of the fish for that sound (Popper, 2005). The consequences of temporary or permanent hearing loss in individual fish on a fish population is unknown; however, it likely depends on the number of individuals affected and whether critical behaviors involving sound (e.g., predator avoidance, prey capture, orientation and navigation, reproduction, etc.) are adversely affected.

Little is known about the mechanisms and characteristics of damage to fish that may be inflicted by exposure to seismic survey sounds. Few data have been presented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. As far as is known, there are two valid papers with proper experimental methods, controls, and careful pathological investigation implicating sounds produced by actual seismic survey airguns with adverse anatomical effects. One such study indicated anatomical damage and the second indicated TTS in fish hearing. The anatomical case is McCauley et al. (2003), who found that exposure to airgun sound caused observable anatomical damage to the auditory maculae of “pink snapper” ( Pagrus auratus ). This damage in the ears had not been repaired in fish sacrificed and examined almost two months after exposure. On the other hand, Popper et al. (2005) documented only TTS (as determined by auditory brainstem response) in two of three fishes from the Mackenzie River Delta. This study found that broad whitefish ( Coreogonus nasus ) that received a sound exposure level of 177 dB re 1 μPa 2. s showed no hearing loss. During both studies, the repetitive exposure to sound was greater than would have occurred during a typical seismic survey. However, the substantial low-frequency energy produced by the airgun arrays [less than approximately 400 Hz in the study by McCauley et al. (2003) and less than approximately 200 Hz in Popper et al. (2005)] likely did not propagate to the fish because the water in the study areas was very shallow (approximately 9 m, 29.5 ft, in the former case and <2 m, 6.6 ft, in the latter). Water depth sets a lower limit on the lowest sound frequency that will propagate (the “cut-off frequency”) at about one-quarter wavelength (Urick, 1983; Rogers and Cox, 1988).

In water, acute injury and death of organisms exposed to seismic energy depends primarily on two features of the sound source: (1) the received peak pressure, and (2) the time required for the pressure to rise and decay (Hubbs and Rechnitzer, 1951; Wardle et al. , 2001). Generally, the higher the received pressure and the less time it takes for the pressure to rise and decay, the greater the chance of acute pathological effects. Considering the peak pressure and rise/decay time characteristics of seismic airgun arrays used today, the pathological zone for fish and invertebrates would be expected to be within a few meters of the seismic source (Buchanan et al. , 2002). Numerous other studies provide examples of no fish mortality upon exposure to seismic sources (Falk and Lawrence, 1973; Holliday et al. , 1987; La Bella et al. , 1996; Santulli et al. , 1999; McCauley et al. , 2000a, 2000b; Bjarti, 2002; Hassel et al. , 2003; Popper et al. , 2005).

Except for these two studies, at least with airgun-generated sound treatments, most contributions rely on rather subjective assays such as fish “alarm” or “startle response” or changes in catch rates by fishers. These observations are important in that they attempt to use the levels of exposures that are likely to be encountered by most free-ranging fish in actual survey areas. However, the associated sound stimuli are often poorly described, and the biological assays are varied (Hastings and Popper, 2005).

Wardle et al. (2001) suggested that in water, acute injury and death of organisms exposed to seismic energy depends primarily on two features of the sound source: (1) the received peak pressure and (2) the time required for the pressure to rise and decay. Generally, as received pressure increases, the period for pressure to rise and decay decreases, and the chance of acute pathological effects increases. According to Buchanan et al. (2004), for the types of seismic airguns and arrays involved with the proposed program, the pathological (mortality) zone for fih would be expected to be with a few meters of the seismic source. Numerous other studies provide examples of no fish mortality upon exposure to seismic sources (Falk and Lawrence 1973; Holliday et al. , 1987; La Bella et al. , 1996; Santulli et al. , 1999; McCauley et al. , 2000a,b, 2003; Bjarti, 2002; Hassel et al. , 2003; Popper et al. , 2005).

Some studies have reported that mortality of fish, fish eggs, or larvae can occur close to seismic sources (Kostyuchenko, 1973; Dalen and Knutsen, 1986; Booman et al. , 1996; Dalen et al. , 1996). Some of the reports claimed seismic effects from treatments quite different from actual seismic survey sounds or even reasonable surrogates. Saetre and Ona (1996) applied a “worst-case scenario” mathematical model to investigate the effects of seismic energy on fish eggs and larvae and concluded that mortality rates caused by exposure to seismic are so low, as compared to natural mortality rates, that the impact of seismic surveying on recruitment to a fish stock must be regarded as insignificant.

Some studies have suggested that seismic survey sound has a limited pathological impact on early developmental stages of crustaceans (Pearson et al. , 1994; Christian et al. , 2003; DFO, 2004). However, the impacts appear to be either temporary or insignificant compared to what occurs under natural conditions. Controlled field experiments on adult crustaceans (Christian et al. , 2003, 2004; DFO, 2004) and adult cephalopods (McCauley et al. , 2000a,b) exposed to seismic survey sound have not resulted in any significant pathological impacts on the animals. It has been suggested that exposure to commercial seismic survey activities has injured giant squid (Guerra et al. , 2004), but there is no evidence to support such claims.

Physiological Effects - Physiological effects refer to cellular and/or biochemical responses of fish and invertebrates to acoustic stress. Such stress potentially could affect fish and invertebrate populations by increasing mortality or reducing reproductive success. Primary and secondary stress responses (i.e., changes in haemolymph levels of enzymes, proteins, etc.) of crustaceans or fish after exposure to seismic survey sound appear to be temporary (hours to days) in all studies done to date (see Payne et al. , 2007 for invertebrates; see Sverdrup et al. , 1994; McCauley et al. , 2000a,b for fish). The periods necessary for these biochemical changes to return to normal are variable and depend on numerous aspects of the biology of the species and of the sound stimulus (see Appendix C of L-DEO's application).

Summary of Physical (Pathological and Physiological) Effects - As indicated in the preceding general discussion, there is a relative lack of knowledge about the potential physical (pathological and physiological) effects of seismic energy on marine fish and invertebrates. Available data suggest that there may be physical impacts on egg, larval, juvenile, and adult stages at very close range. Considering typical source levels associated with commercial seismic arrays, close proximity to the source would result in exposure to very high energy levels. Whereas egg and larval stages are not able to escape such exposures, juveniles and adults most likely would avoid it. In the case of eggs and larvae, it is likely that the numbers adversely affected by such exposure would not be that different from those succumbing to natural mortality. Limited data regarding physiological impacts on fish and invertebrates indicate that these impacts are short term and are most apparent after exposure at close range.

The proposed seismic program for 2008 is predicted to have negligible to low physical effects on the various life stages of fish and invertebrates for its short duration (approximately 24 days) and approximately 1,909-km of unique survey lines extent. Therefore, physical effects of the proposed program on fish and invertebrates would not be significant.

Behavioral Effects - Because of the apparent lack of serious pathological and physiological effects of seismic energy on marine fish and invertebrates, the highest level of concern now centers on the possible effects of exposure to seismic surveys on the distribution, migration patterns, mating, and catchability of fish. There is a need for more information on exactly what effects such sound sources might have on the detailed behavior patterns of fish and invertebrates at different ranges.

Behavioral effects include changes in the distribution, migration, mating, and catchability of fish populations. Studies investigating the possible effects of sound (including seismic sound) on fish and invertebrate behavior have been conducted on both uncaged and caged animals (e.g., Chapman and Hawkins, 1969; Pearson et al. , 1992; Santulli et al. , 1999; Wardle et al. , 2001; Hassel et al. , 2003). Typically, in these studies fish exhibited a sharp “startle” response at the onset of a sound followed by habituation and a return to normal behavior after the sound ceased.

There is general concern about potential adverse effects of seismic operations on fisheries, namely a potential reduction in the “catchability” of fish involved in fisheries. Although reduced catch rates have been observed in some marine fisheries during seismic testing, in a number of cases the findings are confounded by other sources of disturbance (Dalen and Raknes, 1985; Dalen and Knutsen, 1986; Lokkeborg, 1991; Skalski et al. , 1992; Engas et al. , 1996). In other airgun experiments, there was no change in catch per unit effort (CPUE) of fish when airgun pulses were emitted, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the seismic survey (Pickett et al. , 1994; La Bella et al. , 1996). For some species, reductions in catch may have resulted from a change in behavior of the fish (e.g., a change in vertical or horizontal distribution) as reported in Slotte et al. (2004).

In general, any adverse effects on fish behavior or fisheries attributable to seismic testing may depend on the species in question and the nature of the fishery (season, duration, fishing method). They may also depend on the age of the fish, its motivational state, its size, and numerous other factors that are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify at this point, given such limited data on effects of airguns on fish, particularly under realistic at-sea conditions.

For marine invertebrates, behavioral changes could potentially affect such aspects as reproductive success, distribution, susceptibility to predation, and catchability by fisheries. Studies of squid indicated startle responses (McCauley et al. , 2000a,b). In other cases, no behavioral impacts were noted (e.g., crustaceans in Christian et al. , 2003, 2004; DFO, 2004). There have been anecdotal reports of reduced catch rates of shrimp shortly after exposure to seismic surveys; however, other studies have not observed any significant changes in shrimp catch rate (Andriguetto-Filho et al. , 2005). Parry and Gason (2006) reported no changes in rock lobster CPUE during or after seismic surveys off western Victoria, Australia, from 1978-2004. Any adverse effects on crustacean and cephalopod behavior or fisheries attributable to seismic survey sound depend on the species in question and the nature of the fishery (season, duration, fishing method). Additional information regarding the behavioral effects of seismic on invertebrates is contained in Appendix D (c) of L-DEO's application.

Summary of Behavioral Effects - As is the case with pathological and physiological effects of seismic on fish and invertebrates, available information is relatively scant and often contradictory. There have been well-documented observations of fish and invertebrates exhibiting behaviors that appeared to be responses to exposure to seismic energy (i.e., startle response, change in swimming direction and speed, and change in vertical distribution), but the ultimate importance of those behaviors is unclear. Some studies indicate that such behavioral changes are very temporary, whereas others imply that fish might not resume pre-seismic behaviors or distributions for a number of days. There appears to be a great deal of inter- and intra-specific variability. In the case of finfish, three general types of behavioral responses have been identified: startle, alarm, and avoidance. The type of behavioral reaction appears to depend on many factors, including the type of behavior being exhibited before exposure, and proximity and energy level of sound source.

During the proposed study, only a small fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time, and fish species would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the seismic activity ceased. The proposed seismic program is predicted to have negligible to low behavioral effects on the various life stages of the fish and invertebrates during its relatively short duration and extent.

Because of the reasons noted above and the nature of the proposed activities, the proposed operations are not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations or stocks. Similarly, any effects to food sources are expected to be negligible.

Subsistence hunting and fishing continue to feature prominently in the household economies and social welfare of some Alaskan residents, particularly among those living in small, rural villages (Wolfe and Walker, 1987). Subsistence remains the basis for Alaska Native culture and community. In rural Alaska, subsistence activities are often central to many aspects o human existence from patterns of family life to artistic expression and community religious and celebratory activities.

Marine mammals are hunted legally in Alaskan waters by coastal Alaska Natives. In SE Alaska, the only marine mammals that are hunted are Steller sea lions, harbor seals, and sea otters. Wolfe et al. (2004 in Angliss and Outlaw, 2007) estimated that means of 959 and 678 harbor seals from the SE Alaska and the Gulf of Alaska stock, respectively, harvested per year by Alaska Natives between 2000 and 2004, with 743 and 747 seals, respectively, harvested in 2004. Means of 3 and 191 Steller sea lions from the Eastern and Western Alaska stocks, respectively, were harvested per year by Alaska Natives between 2000 and 2004, with 5 and 137 sea lions, respectively, harvested in 2004.

Sea otters are harvested by Alaska Native hunters from SE Alaska to the Aleutian Islands. The USFWS monitors the harvest of sea otters in Alaska. The mean annual subsistence takes from 1996 to 2000 were 97, 297, and 301 animals from the Southwest, Southcentral, and Southeast Alaska sea otter stocks, respectively (USFWS 2002 in Angliss and Outlaw, 2007).

The subsistence harvest of sea otters occurs year-round in coastal communities throughout SE Alaska and the northern GOA. However, there is a general reduction in harvest during the summer months. Hunters are required to obtain tags for sea otter pelts from designated USFWS taggers located in all harvesting villages. The geographical distribution of the harvest is difficult to determine because reports are generated by marking location; harvest location is generally not recorded. Harvests can take place from a large geographic area surrounding each sea otter harvesting village.

Since 1992, the seasonal distribution of harbor seal takes by Alaska Natives has shown two distinct peaks, one during spring, and the other during fall and early winter (Wolfe et al. , 2003). The peak harbor seal harvest season for villages in SE Alaska and the northern GOA varies, but in general the months of highest harvest are September through December, with a smaller peak in March. Harvests are traditionally low from May through August, when harbor seals are raising pups and molting in SE Alaska. The Steller sea lion harvest in SE Alaska and the northern GOA is low throughout the year. In 2002, the only harvests in SE Alaska occurred during March and November, and in the northern GOA and Prince William Sound, harvests occurred in July, November, and December (Wolfe et al. , 2003).

Beluga whales do not occur regularly within the project area. Any occassional subsistence hunting of belugas that might occur in that area would be opportunistic hunting of extralimital animals.

Gray whales are not hunted within the project area. Some of the gray whales that migrate through SE Alaska in spring and late autumn are hunted in Russian waters during summer, and a very limited subsistence has occurred in recent years off Washington. Any small-scale disturbance effects that might occur in SE Alaska as a result of L-DEO's project would have no effect on the hunts for gray whales in those distant locations.

The proposed survey could potentially impact the availability of marine mammals for harvest in a very small area immediately around the Langseth , and for a very short time period during seismic activities. Considering the limited time and locations for the planned seismic surveys, most of which are well offshore (Figure 1 of L-DEO's application), the proposed survey is not expected to have any significant impacts to the availability of Steller sea lions, harbor seals, or sea otters for subsistence harvest. Nonetheless, L-DEO will coordinate its activities with local communities, so that seismic operations will be conducted outside of subsistence hunting times and areas if possible.

Past performance information is relevant information, for future source selection purposes, regarding a contractor's actions under previously awarded contracts. When past performance is to be evaluated, the rule states that the solicitation shall afford offerors the opportunity to identify Federal, state and local government, and private contracts performed by offerors that were similar in nature to the contract being evaluated.

Respondents: 150,000.

Responses Per Respondent: 4.

Annual Responses: 600,000.

Hours Per Response: 2.

Total Burden Hours: 1,200,000.

OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, N.W., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0142, Past Performance Information, in all correspondence.

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 IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, 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: Migrant Student Information Exchange User Application Form.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or household; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 9,800.

Burden Hours: 4,900.

Abstract: The collection is the user application form that is completed by State migrant education program staff who need to obtain access to the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) system. MSIX User Administrators in the States will gather and verify information on applicants who will use MSIX. The application form specifies the MSIX user's identity, title/position, work address, work telephone, e-mail address, and role. These applicants would typically be school counselors, registrars, and Migrant Education Program (MEP) specialists. The MSIX is authorized under Section 1308(b)(1)and (2) of Part C of Title l of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. A System of Records Notice (SORN) for the Privacy Act System associated with this information collection is underway. Privacy Data will not be retrieved until an approved SORN has been published in the Federal Register for 30 days, or is approved by OMB.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3650. 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., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@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 IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, 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. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: Case Service Report.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 80.

Burden Hours: 3,600.

Abstract: As required by sections 13, 101(a)(10), 106 and 626 of the Rehabilitation Act, the data are submitted annually by State Vocational Rehabilitation agencies. Section 13 of the Act requires the Commissioner to collect and report information specified in section 101(a)(10) to the Congress and the President in the Annual Report. Section 626 requires the same information to be reported for individuals who received supported employment services. Data on persons served are needed, too, to satisfy section 131 calling for an exchange of data between RSA, the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Labor (DOL).

Section 106 requires RSA to define performance indicators and establish standards, which State Vocational Rehabilitation agencies must achieve to retain program benefits. A subset of data elements from this reporting instrument are abstracted, aggregated, and applied according to prescribed formulae to generate the performance indicators for each State Vocational Rehabilitation agency. The results of such calculations are then compared to the established standards to determine agency performance.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3647. 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., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@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 IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, 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: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: Evaluation of Mathematics Curricula.

Frequency: Semi-Annually or Annually.

Affected Public: Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: The Evaluation of Math Curricula will assess the effectiveness of up to four early elementary math curricula. This submission is for the third phase of the study, which will expand the study to the third grade. This submission includes the justification and plan for the data collection of information and statistical methods for the evaluation. Data collection forms will be used in the study in this submission. These forms are unchanged from previous OMB submissions. The recruitment and first two years of data collection were cleared in previous OMB submissions.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3690. 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., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov 703-620-3655. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee is to provide advice on development and implementation of programs related to ultra-deepwater natural gas and other petroleum resources to the Secretary of Energy; and provide comments and recommendations and priorities for the Department of Energy Annual Plan per requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Subtitle J, Section 999.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The Designated Federal Officer, the Committee Chairman, and a Facilitator will lead the meeting for the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Elena Melchert at the address or telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 10 minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, Room 1G-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Unconventional Resources Technology Advisory Committee is to provide advice on development and implementation of programs related to onshore unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resources to the Secretary of Energy; and provide comments and recommendations and priorities for the Department of Energy Annual Plan per requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Subtitle J, Section 999.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The Designated Federal Officer, the Committee Chairman, and a Facilitator will lead the meeting for the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Elena Melchert at the address or telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, Room 1G-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

The U.S. Department of Energy was created by an Act of the U.S. Congress, Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, dated August 4, 1977. Southwestern's power marketing activities were transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department of Energy, effective October 1, 1977. Guidelines for preparation of power repayment studies are included in DOE Order No. RA 6120.2 entitled Power Marketing Administration Financial Reporting. Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments of the Power Marketing Administrations are found at Title 10, part 903, Subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 903). Procedures for the confirmation and approval of rates for the Federal Power Marketing Administrations are found at Title 18, part 300, Subpart L of the Code of Federal Regulations (18 CFR 300).

Southwestern markets power from 24 multi-purpose reservoir projects, with hydroelectric power facilities constructed and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These projects are located in the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. Southwestern's marketing area includes these states plus Kansas and Louisiana. The costs associated with the hydropower facilities of 22 of the 24 projects are repaid via revenues received under the Integrated System rates, as are Southwestern's transmission facilities that consist of 1,380 miles of high-voltage transmission lines, 24 substations, and 46 microwave and VHF radio sites. Costs associated with the Robert D. Willis and Sam Rayburn Dams, two projects that are isolated hydraulically, electrically, and financially from the Integrated System are repaid by separate rate schedules.

Following Department of Energy guidelines, Southwestern's Administrator prepared a Current Power Repayment Study using the existing Robert D. Willis rate. The Study indicates that Southwestern's legal requirement to repay the investment in the power generating facility for power and energy marketed by Southwestern will not be met without an increase in revenues. The need for increased revenues is due primarily to increases in Corps of Engineers' operations and maintenance expenses at the project. The Revised Power Repayment Study shows that an increase in annual revenue of $113, 808 (a 14.0 percent increase), beginning October 1, 2008, is needed to satisfy repayment criteria.

Opportunity is presented for Southwestern customers and other interested parties to receive copies of the Robert D. Willis Power Repayment Studies and the proposed rate schedule. If you desire a copy of the Robert D. Willis Power Repayment Data Package with the proposed Rate Schedule, submit your request to the Director, Resources and Rates, Office of Corporate Operations, Southwestern Power Administration, One West Third Street, Tulsa, OK 74103, (918) 595-6680 or via e-mail to swparates@swpa.gov.

A Public Information and Comment Forum (Forum) is tentatively scheduled to be held on August 13, 2008, to explain to customers and interested parties the proposed rate and supporting studies. The proceeding will be transcribed, if held. A chairman, who will be responsible for orderly procedure, will conduct the Forum. Questions concerning the rate, studies, and information presented at the Forum will be answered, to the extent possible, at the Forum. Questions not answered at the Forum will be answered in writing. However, questions involving voluminous data contained in Southwestern's records may best be answered by consultation and review of pertinent records at Southwestern's offices.

Persons interested in attending the Forum should indicate in writing by letter, e-mail, or facsimile transmission (918-595-6656) by August 7, 2008, their intent to appear at such Forum. Should no one indicate an intent to attend by the above-cited deadline, no such Forum will be held.

Persons interested in speaking at the Forum should indicate in writing by letter, e-mail, or facsimile transmission (918-595-6656) at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the Forum so that a list of speakers can be developed. The chairman may allow others to speak if time permits.

A transcript of the Forum will be made. Copies of the transcripts may be obtained directly from the transcribing service for a fee. Copies of all documents introduced will also be available from the transcribing service for a fee.

Written comments on the proposed Robert D. Willis Rate are due on or before September 4, 2008. Five copies of the written comments should be submitted to James K. McDonald, Assistant Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74103.

Following review of the oral and written comments and the information gathered during the course of the proceedings, the Administrator will submit the final Robert D. Willis Rate Proposal, and Power Repayment Studies in support of the proposed rate to the Deputy Secretary of Energy for confirmation and approval on an interim basis, and subsequently to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for confirmation and approval on a final basis. The FERC will allow the public an opportunity to provide written comments on the proposed rate increase before making a final decision.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On November 30, 2007 (72 FR 67720), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. EPA completed an active consultation with the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) in January, 2008. Three comments were received and EPA has addressed the comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0081, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in-person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 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 Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at www.regulations.gov to 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. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in www.regulations.gov 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. For further information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.

Title: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Non-Attainment Area New Source Review (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1230.23, OMB Control No. 2060-0003.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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 title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: Part C of the Clean Air Act (Act)—“Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” and Part D—“Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas,” require all States to adopt preconstruction review programs for new or modified stationary sources of air pollution. In addition, the provisions of Section 110 of the Act include a requirement for States to have a preconstruction review program to manage the emissions from the construction and modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are achieved and maintained. Implementing regulations for these three programs are promulgated at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.166 to Part 51 and 40 CFR 52.21 and 52.24.

In order to receive a construction permit for a major new source or major modification, the applicant must conduct the necessary research, perform the appropriate analyses and prepare the permit application with documentation to demonstrate that their project meets all applicable statutory and regulatory NSR requirements. Specific activities and requirements are listed and described in the Supporting Statement for the ICR.

Reviewing authorities review the permit application, provide for public review of the proposed project, and issue the permit based on its consideration of all technical factors and public input. The EPA, more broadly, reviews a fraction of the total applications and audits the state and local programs for their effectiveness. Consequently, information prepared and submitted by the source is essential for the source to receive a permit, and for Federal, state and local environmental agencies to adequately review the permit application and thereby properly administer and manage the NSR programs.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be broken down as follows:

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.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Industrial plants, state and local permitting agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 150,821.

Frequency of Response: 1 per respondent.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 5,951,068 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $486,452,000, which includes $475,056,000 annual labor costs and $11,396,000 annual capital/startup and O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 44,960 in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. The number of respondents has increased by 51 due to the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC. Circuit to vacate the Clean Units and Pollution Control Project Exclusion provisions of the NSR program. In addition, the burden per permit for Part C major NSR permit applications increased based on active consultation with NACAA, conducted in January 2008.

The “Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on O 3 ” is intended to provide air quality managers and scientists a summary and synthesis of the scientific results that have emerged from the EPA ORD Global Change Research Program (ORD GCRP) assessment of the impact of global change on U.S. regional air quality. The report discusses the studies that have focused on the sensitivity of U.S. air quality to meteorological changes associated with a warming climate in large regions within the continental U.S. The EPA recognizes that climate-air quality interactions occur at multiple scales (both spatial and temporal), and that an understanding of these interactions demands contributions from several scientific disciplines. The EPA ORD GCRP developed a research and assessment program that combines the resources and expertise of the ORD labs and centers toward the goal of developing the necessary scientific underpinnings. The ultimate goal of the Program is to provide air quality managers with the scientific information and tools needed to evaluate the implications of global change and to enhance their ability to consider global change in their decisions. The “Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Preliminary Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on O 3 ” is a preliminary step in that direction. This report provides an update of the progress that has been made in applying climate and atmospheric chemistry models to investigate potential future meteorological effects on air quality. It does not include changes in air pollutant emissions other than those that are explicitly linked to meteorological variables and incorporated within the models ( e.g. , biogenic VOC emissions). In addition, it provides a preliminary interpretation of what this improved scientific understanding means for air quality management. Future assessment reports will cover the combined impacts of changing climate and air pollutant emissions on air quality. The program also plans to develop additional reports that focus on additional pollutants, including PM and mercury. NCEA worked collaboratively with the EPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), and ORD's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) and National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) on this report.

Members of the public may attend the workshop as observers, and there will be a limited time for comments from the public in the afternoon. Please let Versar, Inc. know if you wish to make comments during the workshop. Space is limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you register pesticide products under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Agricultural pesticide manufacturers (32532).

• Antimicrobial pesticide manufacturers (32561).

• Antifoulant pesticide manufacturers (32551).

• Wood preservative manufacturers (32519).

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in the notice and in FIFRA section 33. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-[0545]. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr .

The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 established a new section 33 of FIFRA creating a registration service fee system for certain types of pesticide applications, establishment of tolerances, and certain other regulatory decisions under FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Section 33 also created a schedule of decision review times for applications covered by the service fee system. The Agency began administering the registration service fee system for covered applications received on or after March 23, 2004.

On October 9, 2007, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act was signed by the President, revising, among other things, FIFRA section 33. The new law reauthorized the service fee system through 2012 and established fees and review times for applications received during fiscal years 2008 through 2012. As required by section 33(b)(6)(A) of FIFRA, the registration service fees for covered pesticide registration applications received on or after October 1, 2008, increase by five percent rounding up to the nearest dollar from the fees published in the October 30, 2007, Federal Register Notice (72 FR 61466). In addition, this notice provides shorter decision review periods for certain application categories.

The publication of this fee schedule is required by section 33(b)(6)(C) of FIFRA as amended.

This unit explains how EPA has organized the fee schedule identified in the statute and how to read the fee schedule tables, and includes a key to terminology published with the table in the Congressional Review. EPA's organization and presentation of the fee schedule information does not affect the categories of registration service fees or the structure or procedures for submitting applications or petitions for tolerance.

The fee schedule published in the Congressional Record of July 21, 2007 identifies the registration service fees and decision times and is organized according to the organizational units of the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) within EPA. Thereafter, the categories within the organizational unit sections of the table are further categorized according to the type of application being submitted, the use patterns involved, or, in some cases, upon the type of pesticide that is the subject of the application. The fee categories differ by Division. Not all application types are covered by, or subject to, the fee system.

In today's notice, EPA has retained the format of previous schedule notices and included the corrections to the schedule published in the September 24, 2007 issue of the Congressional Record. The schedules are presented as 11 tables, organized by OPP Division and by type of application or pesticide subject to the fee. These tables only list the decision time review periods for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 as these are the only applicable review periods for applications received on or after October 1, 2008. Unit IV. presents fee tables for the Registration Division (RD) (5 tables), the Antimicrobials Division (AD) (3 tables), and the Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (3 tables).

1. Each table consists of the following columns :

• The column entitled “EPA No.” assigns an EPA identifier to each fee category. There are 140 categories spread across the 3 Divisions. There are 58 RD categories, 27 AD categories, and 55 BPPD categories. For tracking purposes, OPP has assigned a 3-digit identifier to each category, beginning with RD categories, followed by AD and BPPD categories. The categories are prefaced with a letter designation indicating which Division of OPP is responsible for applications in that category (R= Registration Division, A=Antimicrobials Division, B=Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division).

• The column entitled “CR No.” cross-references the current Congressional Record category number for convenience. However, EPA will be using the categories as numbered in the “EPA No.” column in its tracking systems.

• The column entitled “Action” describes the categories of action. In establishing the expanded fee schedule categories, Congress eliminated some of the more confusing terminology of the original categories. For example, instead of the term “fast-track,” the schedule in the Congressional Record uses the regulatory phrase “identical or substantially similar in composition and use to a registered product.”

• The column entitled “Decision Time” lists the decision times in months for each type of action for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010. The 2010 decision times apply to 2011 and 2012. The decision review periods in the tables are based upon EPA fiscal years (FY), which run from October 1 through September 30.

• The column entitled “FY 09/FY 10 Registration Service Fee ($)” lists the registration service fee for the action for fiscal year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009) and fiscal year 2010 (October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010).

2. The following acronyms are used in some of the tables :

• DART-Dose Adequacy Response Team

• DNT-Developmental Neurotoxicity

• HSRB-Human Studies Review Board

• GW/SW-Ground Water/Surface Water

• PHI-Pre-Harvest Interval

• PPE-Personal Protective Equipment

• REI-Restricted Entry Interval

• SAP-FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

The Registration Division of OPP is responsible for the processing of pesticide applications and associated tolerance petitions for pesticides that are termed “conventional chemicals,” excluding pesticides intended for antimicrobial uses. The term “conventional chemical” is a term of art that is intended to distinguish synthetic chemicals from those that are of naturally occurring or non-synthetic origin, synthetic chemicals that are identical to naturally-occurring chemicals and microbial pesticides. Tables 1 through 5 of Unit IV.A. cover RD actions.