Title: Importation of Pork-filled Pasta Products.

OMB Number: 0579-0214.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is authorized to, among other things, prohibit or restrict the importation and interstate movement of animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into and dissemination within the United States of animal diseases and pests. To fulfill this mission, APHIS regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States. The regulations are contained in title 9, chapter 1, subchapter D, parts 91 through 99, of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of specified animals and animal products into the United States to prevent the introduction into the U.S. livestock population of certain contagious animal diseases, including swine vesicular disease (SVD). Section 94.12 of the regulations contains, among other things, specific processing, recordkeeping, and certification requirements for pork-filled pasta products exported to the United States from regions affected with SVD.

The regulations require, among other things, that the pork-filled pasta products be accompanied by a certificate stating that the product has been handled and processed according to the requirements set forth in the regulations. This certificate must be issued and signed by an official of the national government of the region in which the pasta products were processed.

In addition, the processing facility where the pork-filled pasta products are produced must maintain original records (to be kept for a minimum of 2 years) that identify, for each lot of pork used, the date the pork entered the facility, the lot number, the health certificate that accompanied the pork from the slaughter/processing facility to the meat-filled pasta processing facility, and the date the pork either began dry-curing or was cooked.

These records would provide important information in any traceback investigation that may need to be conducted by officials of the region of origin of the pork-filled pasta product, or by officials of the USDA.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response.

Respondents: National Government of the region in which the pork-filled pasta product is processed and operators of pasta facilities.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 2.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.5.

Estimated annual number of responses: 3.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 3 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: Standards for Privately Owned Quarantine Facilities for Ruminants.

OMB Number: 0579-0232.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to, among other things, prohibit or restrict the importation and interstate movement of animals and animal products into the United States to prevent the introduction of animal diseases and pests.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 govern the importation into the United States of specified animals and animal products in order to help prevent the introduction of various animal diseases into the United States. The regulations in part 93 require, among other things, that certain animals, as a condition of entry, be quarantined upon arrival in the United States. APHIS operates animal quarantine facilities and also authorizes the use of quarantine facilities that are privately owned and operated for certain animal importations.

The regulations at subpart D of part 93 (9 CFR 93.400 through 93.436) pertain to the importation of ruminants. Ruminants include all animals that chew the cud, such as cattle, buffaloes, sheep, goats, deer, antelopes, camels, llamas, and giraffes. Ruminants imported into the United States must be quarantined upon arrival for at least 30 days, with certain exceptions. Ruminants from Canada and Mexico are not subject to this quarantine.

Regulations for privately owned quarantine facilities for ruminants require the use of certain information collection activities, including applications for facility approval, compliance agreements explaining the conditions under which the facility must be operated, certifications that the facility meets all applicable environmental regulations, requests for variance, and maintenance of certain records covering quarantine operations.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 16 hours per response.

Respondents: Owners/operators of privately owned quarantine facilities for ruminants.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 1.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 4.

Estimated annual number of responses: 4.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 64 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: Importation of Swine and Swine Products from the European Union.

OMB Number: 0579-0265.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to, among other things, prohibit or restrict the importation and interstate movement of animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into or dissemination within the United States of animal diseases and pests. Regulations governing the importation of animals and animal products into the United States are contained in 9 CFR parts 92 through 98.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals and animal products, including live swine, pork and pork products into the United States to prevent the introduction into U.S. livestock population of certain animal diseases, including classical swine fever (CSF), rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease, swine vesicular disease, and African swine fever.

Section 94.24 deals specifically with the importation of pork and pork products from regions where CSF exists. The regulations allow, under specified conditions, the importation of pork, pork products, and swine from the APHIS-defined European Union CSF region. These requirements necessitate the use of several information collection activities, including certification statements for the importation of pork, pork products, and swine; and the placing of seals on certain conveyances.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response.

Respondents: Foreign animal health officials.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 15.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 456.4.

Estimated annual number of responses: 6,846.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 6,846 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: Economic Assessment of Conservation Reserve Program Lands for Hunting.

OMB Control Number: 0560-NEW.

Type of Request: New.

Abstract: As specified in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, (the 2008 Farm Bill, Pub. L. 110-246), FSA administers the CRP to conserve and improve soil, water, and wildlife resources. Federal investments in the CRP on private cropland enhance essential ecosystem services, including wildlife, and provide improved hunting opportunities in rural areas. Hunters from urban areas within the State and non-residents outside the State are drawn to CRP lands or other private lands surrounding CRP lands for hunting.

FSA is required by statute to consider benefits from the enhancement of wildlife habitat when selecting CRP offers. Because hunter spending increases in rural areas as hunting opportunities increase, economic activity and employment within the outdoor recreational sector are enhanced. FSA is responsible for identifying and quantifying the relationship between job creation and investments in CRP lands, as increased outdoor recreation is among the benefits FSA provides in administering the CRP.

There have been no statewide assessments of the CRP program on hunting use, expenditures, and jobs in North and South Dakota (ND and SD, respectively). The only prior studies focused on six small areas in ND and are 10 years old. There have been significant changes to the CRP program since that time. In addition, there is limited generalizability of the six ND areas to the rest of ND and SD. Without data on hunter use and expenditures, the economic contribution generated by federal investments in CRP cannot be reliably estimated.

FSA plans to conduct statewide mail surveys with ND and SD hunters to elicit information on:

(a) Their use of CRP lands in terms of days spent hunting there;

(b) Expenditure pattern information; and

(c) Net economic values.

The primary objective of the survey is to estimate the employment and income contribution of current CRP lands to the rural areas within the respective States, and possible changes to jobs and income emanating from changes in the CRP program.

We have discussed the survey with the State Fish and Game agencies and tentatively selected mail surveys. Mail surveys appear to be the best unbiased survey approach because the State Fish and Game agencies do not have email addresses for all hunters, and hunters in many rural locations of ND and SD do not have email access at home.

Collection of the data is necessary to evaluate and improve CRP selection criteria and program implementation. Having information on recreation-related jobs permits a comparison of county-level impacts of CRP land temporarily going out of crop production.

Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 20 minutes per response.

Frequency of Collection: One time only.

Respondents: Hunters in ND and SD.

Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 2,400.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 2,400.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 800 hours.

We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of FSA's estimate of burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All responses to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The purpose of the Wrangell Island Project is to respond to the goals and objectives identified by the Forest Plan to guide timber management to support the local and regional economies of Southeast Alaska, while moving the Wrangell Island Project Area towards the desired future condition for all resources.

The underlying need for the Wrangell Island Project comes from the Forest Service's obligation, subject to applicable law, to seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass that meets market demand annually and for the planning cycle, and to restore and improve forest resources to a condition where they provide increased benefits to society.

Integrated planning is essential to provide an orderly flow of timber to large and small timber purchasers, mill operators, and value-added wood product industries in Southeast Alaska who contribute to the local and regional economies of Wrangell Island and Southeast Alaska while also improving forest resource conditions. This project will help provide a reliable, long-term supply of timber that will support local jobs and facilitate the transition to a sustainable wood product industry based on young-growth management.

The Forest Service is proposing a multi-year project involving a variety of timber harvest, road construction, and forest restoration and enhancement activities. The proposed action would include the harvest of timber from up to 6,500 acres of forested land using one or varying sizes of timber sales, offered over a period of years, within the roaded land base on Wrangell Island. Up to 22 miles of National Forest System road and about 30 miles of temporary road would be constructed. Preliminary analysis shows that up to an estimated 80 million board feet of sawtimber and utility wood could be made available to industry for harvest. Existing log transfer facilities would be used as needed. Harvest would include helicopter, ground based, and cable-yarding systems and include even-aged and uneven-aged harvest prescriptions to achieve stand objectives.

Integrated restoration and enhancement activities will include road maintenance and improvements, invasive species treatments, erosion control, fish passage improvements. Other activities may include recreation enhancements, wildlife and fisheries habitat improvements, and subsistence access enhancement. All proposed activities would meet the standards and guidelines of the Tongass Forest Plan.

In addition to the Proposed Action and No Action alternative, the Forest Service is considering a range of action alternatives based on public input received to date. These include an alternative which adjusts Old Growth Reserve (OGR) boundaries to allow timber harvest within the roaded portions of small and medium OGRs on Wrangell Island. This alternative would require a Forest Plan amendment as part of the Decision. Another alternative is being developed by interested citizens and the Borough of Wrangell.

The responsible official for the decision on this project is the Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest, Federal Building, 648 Mission Street, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901.

The responsible official will decide: (1) The estimated timber volume to make available from the project, as well as the location, design, and scheduling of timber harvest, road construction and reconstruction, and silvicultural practices used; (2) access management measures (road, trail, and area restrictions and closures); (3) mitigation measures and monitoring requirements; and (4) whether there may be a significant restriction on subsistence uses.

The initial scoping identified preliminary issues and concerns which may be analyzed in the EIS to disclose potential effects of the project on the following: timber supply, supporting the timber industry through the transition from old-growth harvest to young-growth management, road and access management, economic and rural stability, wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat (fisheries/hydrology/watersheds), soil productivity and slope stability, invasive species, heritage resources, roadless area characteristics, scenery, recreation, subsistence use, and climate change and carbon cycling.

All necessary permits will be obtained prior to project implementation, and may include the following:

• Review Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC):

• Solid Waste Disposal Permit State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources (DNR):

• Authorization for occupancy and use of tidelands and submerged lands

The initial scoping period started when the NOI was published in 2010. This proposal has been listed on the Tongass National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions since January, 2011. There is an opportunity to submit new or additional comments for 45 days after publication of this Corrected NOI. Comments submitted previously will be considered in the analysis.

Public scoping meetings were held in Petersburg and Wrangell, Alaska, on January 11 and 13, 2011, respectively. An updated scoping document has been posted on the Tongass National Forest public Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/projects.shtml, and a project update letter will be mailed out to those who previously commented.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record. Comments submitted anonymously will also be accepted and considered.

We invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. Riddhi submitted a case brief on November 4, 2011, and the petitioner and Navneet submitted case briefs on November 7, 2011, respectively. On November 14, 2011, Navneet filed a rebuttal brief. On November 15, 2011, the petitioner filed a rebuttal brief. The petitioner filed a letter on December 14, 2011, requesting that the Department reject Navneet's rebuttal brief claiming it included untimely filed new factual information. The Department found that Navneet did in fact, include certain untimely filed factual information in its rebuttal brief and rejected this brief on December 16, 2011. 4 Pursuant to the Department's letter of December 16, 2011, Navneet re-filed its rebuttal brief on December 23, 2011, to exclude the untimely filed factual information. 5

The scope of this order includes certain lined paper products, typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is not a defining characteristic) composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page requirement for loose leaf filler paper) including but not limited to such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks, loose leaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 8 3/4 inches to 15 inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, or “tear-out” size), and are measured as they appear in the product ( i.e., stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points. Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within the scope of this order whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards, stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated, included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing thereto.

Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:

• Unlined copy machine paper;

• Writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to products commonly known as “tablets,” “note pads,” “legal pads,” and “quadrille pads”), provided that they do not have a front cover (whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper;

• Three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not include subject paper;

• Index cards;

• Printed books and other books that are case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;

• Newspapers;

• Pictures and photographs;

• Desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not limited to such products generally known as “office planners,” “time books,” and “appointment books”);

• Telephone logs;

• Address books;

• Columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily suited for the recording of written numerical business data;

• Lined business or office forms, including but not limited to: pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;

• Lined continuous computer paper;

• Boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not limited to products commonly known as “fine business paper,” “parchment paper,” and “letterhead”), whether or not containing a lined header or decorative lines;

• Stenographic pads (“steno pads”), Gregg ruled (“Gregg ruling” consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the left of the book), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches;

Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following trademarked products:

• Fly TM lined paper products: A notebook, notebook organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with infrared reflective inks and readable only by a Fly TM pen-top computer. The product must bear the valid trademark Fly TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).

• Zwipes TM : A notebook or notebook organizer made with a blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-developed permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes TM pen). This system allows the marker portion to mark the writing surface with a permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker dispenses a solvent capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing the ink to be removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).

• FiveStar®Advance TM : A notebook or notebook organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1″ wide elastic fabric band. This band is located 2 3/8 ″ from the top of the front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks FiveStar®Advance TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).

• FiveStar Flex TM : A notebook, a notebook organizer, or binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers joined by 300 denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length of the spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are of a specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to the back cover with the outside of the polyester spine cover to the inside back cover. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. Each ring within the fixture is comprised of a flexible strap portion that snaps into a stationary post which forms a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted with six metal rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is specifically positioned on the outside back cover. The product must bear the valid trademark FiveStar Flex TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).

Merchandise subject to this order is typically imported under headings 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

The period of review (POR) is September 1, 2009, through August 31, 2010.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the Fourth Antidumping Duty Order Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from India (2009-2010),” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with this notice and which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit, main Commerce Building, Room 7046. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ . The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on comments received from the interested parties, we have made company-specific changes to Navneet's margin calculation. See Issues and Decision Memorandum and the Analysis Memorandum to File through James Terpstra, Program Manager, from Stephanie Moore for Navneet Regarding “Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from India,” dated concurrent with this notice, for further details.

Final Results of Review:

We determine that the following weighted-average margins exist:

Review-Specific Average Rate  6 Applicable to the 33 Non-Selected Companies Subject to This Review:

Pursuant to these final results, the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the antidumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. 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 ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

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 applies to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies examined in this review ( i.e., companies for which a dumping margin was calculated) where the companies did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 3.91 percent all-others rate for India if there is no company-specific rate for an intermediary company(ies) involved in the transaction. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of China; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006) ( Lined Paper Orders ). See also Assessment Policy Notice, 68 FR at 23954.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for all shipments of CLPP from India 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) of the Act: (1) For companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rates listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies other than those covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 3.91 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 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 and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping and/or countervailing duties reimbursed.

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(a)(3), 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On November 16, 2011, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty investigation of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China. 1 The period of investigation is April 1, 2011, through September 30, 2011. The notice of initiation stated that, unless postponed, the Department would issue its preliminary determination for this investigation no later than 140 days after the date of the initiation in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1). The preliminary determination of the antidumping duty investigation is currently due no later than March 27, 2012.

On March 2, 2012, SolarWorld Industries America Inc. (“Petitioner”), made a timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) for postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation. 2 Petitioner requested a 30-day postponement of the preliminary determination in order to provide the Department with sufficient time to review the questionnaire responses and issue appropriate requests for clarification and additional information.

Sections 733(c)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Act permit the Department to extend the time limits for the preliminary determination if it concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating and determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated by reason of the number and complexity of the transactions to be investigated or adjustments to be considered, the novelty of issues presented, or the number of firms whose activities must be investigated, and additional time is necessary to make the preliminary determination. The Department may postpone making the preliminary determination under section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act until not later than the 190th day after the date on which the administering authority initiates an investigation under section 732(c) of the Act, or an investigation is initiated under section 732(a) of the Act. 3

The Department has concluded that the parties concerned are cooperating with the antidumping duty investigation and the nature of this case is extraordinarily complicated. Since the initiation of this investigation, the mandatory respondents filed timely, extensive questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses. Further, the instant investigation involves a technologically sophisticated product that is manufactured through a complex, multi-stage production process using numerous factors of production (“FOP”). Accordingly, the methodology employed to report FOP data is inherently complex. Moreover, additional time is necessary in order to issue the preliminary determination. For the forgoing reasons, the Department determines that this investigation in extraordinarily complicated within the meaning of section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and that a full extension of the preliminary determination is necessary.

Accordingly, in accordance with section 733(c)(1) of the Act, we are fully extending the due date for the preliminary determination to no later than 190 days after the day on which the investigation was initiated. Thus the new deadline for issuing the preliminary determination is May 16, 2012.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

On December 6, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of the first administrative review covering the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China for the period January 23, 2009, through October 31, 2010. 1 Subsequent to the publication of the Preliminary Results, the Department extended the deadlines for submission of post-preliminary surrogate values, rebuttal comments and case briefs. 2 The final results of the review are currently due no later than April 4, 2012.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to complete the final results of an administrative review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the final results to a maximum of 180 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published.

We determine that it is not practicable to complete the final results of this review within the original time limit because of the complexity of issues involving the analysis of surrogate value data on the record and because of the additional extensions we have granted, at the request of various parties, to review and submit post-preliminary surrogate value data, case briefs and rebuttal comments. Therefore, we are extending the time period for issuing the final results of this review by 40 days until May 14, 2012.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).

On August 26, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on, inter alia, purified carboxymethylcellulose from Finland and the Netherlands covering the period July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 53404 (August 26, 2011). The current deadline for the preliminary results of these reviews is April 1, 2012.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires that the Department complete the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested.

The Department finds it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of these reviews within the original time frame because the Department requires additional time to gather and analyze the information submitted on the record. Thus, the Department finds it is not practicable to complete these reviews within the original time limit ( i.e., April 1, 2012). Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of these administrative reviews by 120 days ( i.e., until July 30, 2012), in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days after publication of the preliminary results notice.

This extension is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.

The meeting will take place from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT. This meeting is open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment from 3:00-3:30 p.m. EDT. Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.

Topics to be Considered: The agenda for the April 27, 2011 ETTAC meeting will include discussion of various issues and policies that affect environmental trade. These subjects will encompass the harmonization of global environmental regulations, standards, and certification programs; analysis of existing environmental goods and services data sources; trade liberalization negotiations; development of trade promotion programs; and issues related to innovation in the environmental technology sector.

Background: The ETTAC is mandated by Public Law 103-392. It was created to advise the U.S. government on environmental trade policies and programs, and to help it to focus its resources on increasing the exports of the U.S. environmental industry. ETTAC operates as an advisory committee to the Secretary of Commerce and the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC). ETTAC was originally chartered in May of 1994. It was most recently re-chartered until October 2012.

Copies of the Final EA, HCP, IA, and associated documents are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Northern California National Marine Fisheries Office located at: 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521 (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). The Final EA, HCP, and IA are also available electronically for review on the NMFS Southwest Region Web site at: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/nepa.htm .

Section 9 of the Federal ESA prohibits the take of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened by either the FWS or NMFS (16 U.S.C. 1538). The ESA defines the term “take” as: “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). NMFS has defined “harm” as an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, and such acts may include “significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 222.102). Pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B)), NMFS may issue ITPs authorizing the take of listed species if, among other things, such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities.

To receive an ITP under the ESA, an applicant must prepare an HCP that specifies the following: (1) the impact which will likely result from the taking; (2) steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts; (3) funding available to implement the steps; (4) what alternative actions to the taking the applicant considered and the reasons why these alternatives were not used; and (5) any other measures NMFS may require as being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the HCP (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(A)). To issue a permit, NMFS must find that: (1) the taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will minimize and mitigate impacts of the taking to the maximum extent practicable; (3) the applicant will ensure adequate funding for the HCP; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (5) the applicant will meet other measures required by NMFS. Regulations governing issuance of NMFS-issued permits can be found at 50 CFR 222.301 through 307.

The applicant requested an ITP from NMFS for the SONCC coho salmon ESU. The Final PacifiCorp HCP for the Project includes a series of conservation measures to minimize and mitigate the effects of operation of the Project on potential incidental take of SONCC ESU coho salmon during the 10-year permit term. In general, the Covered Activities under the ITP and HCP include the following: (1) Operate and maintain the spill gates at Link River dam for regulation and releases of flows from Link River dam for purposes of hydroelectric generation, (2) Operate and maintain the East Side and West Side canals, penstocks, turbines, and powerhouse facilities, (3) Operate and maintain Keno dam, spill gates, and fish ladder, (4) Regulate the water level upstream of Keno dam in accordance with the agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) (per PacifiCorp's existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license) and for irrigation withdrawal activities, (5) Operate and maintain J.C. Boyle dam, fish bypass system, water conveyance system, (6) Maintain an instream flow release from the J.C. Boyle dam to the river of not less than 100 cfs (per PacifiCorp's existing FERC license), (7) Regulate flows from J.C. Boyle dam and powerhouse during normal operations such that ramping rates of flow in the river do not exceed 9 inches per hour (as measured at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage located 0.5 mile downstream of the J.C. Boyle powerhouse) per PacifiCorp's existing FERC license, (8) Operate and maintain Copco No. 1 and Copco No. 2 dams, water conveyance systems, turbines, and powerhouse facilities, (9) Operate and maintain Iron Gate dam (and associated appurtenances), penstocks, turbines, and powerhouse facilities, (10) Regulate releases from Iron Gate dam in accordance with NMFS' biological opinion on Reclamation's Klamath Project operations which identifies instream flow and ramping rate requirements (as measured at the USGS gage located 0.5 mile downstream of Iron Gate dam), and (11) Regulate water levels at Keno, J.C. Boyle, Copco, and Iron Gate reservoirs.

The stated biological goals of PacifiCorp's HCP are to: (1) Offset biological effects of blocked habitat upstream of Iron Gate dam by enhancing the viability of the Upper Klamath coho salmon population, (2) Enhance coho salmon spawning habitat downstream of Iron Gate dam, (3) Improve instream flow conditions for coho salmon downstream of Iron Gate dam, (4) Improve water quality for coho salmon downstream of Iron Gate dam, (5) Reduce disease incidence and mortality in juvenile coho salmon downstream of Iron Gate dam, (6) Enhance migratory and rearing habitat for coho salmon in the Klamath River mainstem corridor, and (7) Enhance and expand rearing habitat for coho salmon in key tributaries.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft environmental assessment, habitat conservation plan, implementing agreement, receipt of application for the ITP, and notice of a public meeting was published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2011 (76 FR 25307). The public review period occurred for 60 days, and no oral comments were received at a public meeting held in Redding, California on June 29, 2011. A total of eleven (11) individual comment letters were received by the July 5, 2011 public comment deadline. Two separate individual comment letters were received after the public comment deadline, and responses to concerns raised in these letters have been provided separately from the final environmental assessment. NMFS reviewed the comments received and identified 79 separate comments regarding either the Draft EA or the HCP. A response to each of the comments received during the public comment period is included in the Final EA.

The proposed permit issuance triggered the need for compliance with NEPA and accordingly NMFS prepared a NEPA document. The Final EA analyzes the proposed action and one other alternative (No Action). Under the proposed action, NMFS would issue the ITP and PacifiCorp would implement its HCP within the Klamath River basin. Under the No Action Alternative, the requested ITP would not be issued, and PacifiCorp would not implement the HCP. NMFS is responsible for compliance under NEPA and is providing notice of the availability of the Final EA and is making available for public review the responses to comments on the Draft EA.

The Groundfish Committee will meet to continue development of two management actions. The Committee will continue development of an action to modify measures that apply to sectors. This discussion is expected to focus primarily on monitoring issues, including goals and objectives and possible funding mechanisms. The Committee may also discuss full retention of allocate groundfish species and other sector framework issues. The Committee will discuss an action to establish acceptable biological catches (ABCs) and annual catch limits (ACLs) for fishing years 2013 and 2014. As part of this discussion the Committee will receive a preliminary report on recently updated assessments and may discuss further the Council's response to the recent Gulf of Maine cod assessment. Setting ABCs/ACLs may also require modification of recreational fishing measures and the Committee may begin this discussion. The Committee may also discuss adopting additional sub-ACLs for the scallop fishery and pursuing the Mixed Stock Exception for SNE/MA windowpane flounder. The Committee will receive an update on Plan Development Team work related to possible modifications to groundfish closed areas. They will receive a report on the recent Endangered Species Act listing of Atlantic Sturgeon and will discuss ways to reduce sturgeon takes. The Committee will also discuss the rockhopper/roller gear restriction in the western Gulf of Maine and develop a recommended response to a request for clarification from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Other business may be discussed.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Council will hold its 142nd regular Council Meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:

• Call to Order

• Adoption of Agenda

• Consideration of the 141st Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions

• Executive Director's Report

• Litigation over CFMC Amendment and the Associated Biological Opinion

• ACLs AMs Seagrasses

• White Paper FMPs by Areas

• Regulatory Amendment on Parrotfish Trips, Size Limits, and Trap Escape Vents—Options Paper

• SSC Meeting Report

• Fishing Industry Advisory Panel Report

Public Comment Period—(5) Five-minutes Presentations

• Administrative Committee Meeting—SSC/AP Membership

• Highly Migratory Species Presentation

• Trap Reduction Project Update

• Queen Conch—ESA Petition

• Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Report

• Catch Share Project Update

• Enforcement Reports

—Puerto Rico—DNER

—U.S. Virgin Islands—DPNR

—NOAA/NMFS

—U.S. Coast Guard

• Administrative Committee Recommendations

• Meetings Attended by Council Members and Staff

• Public Comment Period (5-Minutes Presentations)

• Other Business

• Next Council Meeting

The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. To further accommodate discussion and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice.

The meetings are open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Simultaneous Interpretation (English/Spanish) will be provided. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be subjects for formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice, and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1920, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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 small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specific 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 for incidental takings 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 U.S. citizens can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) further established a 45-day time limit for NMFS' review of an application, followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

On August 30, 2011, NMFS received an application from AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, on behalf of Fishermen's, requesting an IHA for the take, by Level B harassment, of small numbers of bottlenose dolphins, harbor porpoises, and harbor seals incidental to pile driving activities off the New Jersey coast. Upon receipt of additional information and a revised application, NMFS determined the application complete and adequate on February 17, 2012.

Fishermen's plans to construct a 20 megawatt offshore wind farm 4.5 kilometers (km) off the New Jersey coast. The long-term project would comprise a single row of six electric generating windmills. Pile driving is required to construct a jacketed foundation on the sea floor for each turbine. Because elevated sound levels from pile driving have the potential to result in marine mammal harassment, NMFS is proposing to issue an IHA for take incidental to pile driving activities.

Fishermen's proposes to install 18 piles to create six jacketed foundations for a row of wind turbines in the Atlantic Ocean. Each foundation would consist of a three-legged structure, made up of three hollow steel pipes with an outer diameter of about 132 centimeters (cm). Each leg, or pipe, would be driven to a depth of about 46 meters (m) below the sea floor. Cross braces, placed between each leg, would provide additional support to the foundation. Each side of the foundation would measure about 16 m at the sea floor. The foundations would extend through the water column to about 14 m above mean higher high water, depending on tide levels. The top of each foundation would connect to the turbine with a transition piece, which would be welded to the foundation at about 93 m above mean higher high water. A scour protection mat would be installed at the base of each foundation to prevent ocean currents from eroding the sea floor around the foundation.

Fishermen's would use a Delmag D-100 or equivalent hydraulic hammer to install the 18 piles. The hydraulic hammer would be positioned on a heavy lift crane barge along with the lift crane, which would be used to lift the foundation off a second barge and place it on the seafloor. Each pile would require 600 to 900 blows over a period of 1 to 2 hours. The foundations' jacket structure and design are expected to lessen the amount and intensity of sound propagation because each pile would be encased within a leg of the jacket during hammering. The planned distance between each foundation is about 1,080 m. One turbine would be constructed at a time.

Fishermen's would also install a submarine electric cable to transmit power from the turbines to the shore. The cable would make landfall at a point in Atlantic City and continue underground to the existing Huron Substation located along Absecon Avenue. The subsea cable would likely be arranged in a single string configuration and composed of three copper conductors, each 185 mm square, arranged within an insulated, single wire armored submarine electric composite cable. Fishermen's would use jet plowing to install the submarine electric cables, which is a common burial method that minimizes environmental impacts to water quality and aquatic natural resources. The jet plow device is hydraulically powered and requires a specially designed cable-laying vessel to tow it along the seafloor. As it is pulled forward, it fluidizes the sediment in such a way that the cable settles into the trench under its own weight. The subsea cable will be buried about 3 m deep from the turbine field to a point about 550 m from the shoreline. About 76 m 3 of bottom material may be displaced during the process and a 21 m 2 surface area may be disturbed. The remaining hole would be backfilled to the extent possible using previously removed material.

Fishermen's plans to commence turbine installation and cable laying in the summer of 2012, pending final state and federal authorizations. Installation of all 18 piles would require a total of 12 to 15 hours of driving time. Construction of the entire wind farm is anticipated to take 4 months, but pile driving activities would occur for 15 to 24 days. Pile driving is expected to last a maximum of 24 days, during the months of May and June. NMFS would issue the IHA for a 4-month period (May-August) to allow for permitting and weather delays. Pile driving would only occur in weather that provides adequate visibility for marine mammal monitoring activities.

The proposed activity would occur in state waters of New Jersey, about 4.5 km from Atlantic City. The future turbines would run roughly parallel to the coast in a single line. This location was chosen over alternative sites in New Jersey waters based on public support. Water depths at the proposed project location are 8 to 12 m at mean lower low water.

Sound is a mechanical disturbance consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air or water, and is generally characterized by several variables. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while sound level describes the sound's loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound level increases or decreases exponentially with each dB of change. For example, 10 dB yields a sound level 10 times more intense than 1 dB, while a 20 dB level equates to 100 times more intense, and a 30 dB level is 1,000 times more intense. Sound levels are compared to a reference sound pressure (micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. For air and water, these reference pressures are “re: 20 µPa” and “re: 1  µPa,” respectively. Root mean square (RMS) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. RMS is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1975). RMS accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units rather than by peak pressures.

Based on measurements taken around impact hammers at other in-water locations, source levels during pile driving are estimated to reach about 185 dB RMS. Assuming a practical spreading loss of 15 log R, Fishermen's estimates that the 180-dB (Level A harassment threshold) isopleth for the impact hammer would be about 50 m from the source. The 160-dB (Level B harassment threshold) isopleth would be about 500 m from the source. The foundations' jacket structure and design are expected to lessen sound levels and intensity, but the amount of sound reduction afforded by the jacket is unknown. Noise associated with other construction activities (e.g,. cable laying) is expected to be minimal.

There are 42 marine mammal species with confirmed or potential occurrence off the coast of New Jersey. Of these, 20 species are regular inhabitants to the northeast Atlantic Ocean and could occur in the proposed project area at some point during the year (Table 1).

Fishermen's proposed project area was included in a large, comprehensive ecological baseline study of New Jersey's marine waters (NJDEP, 2010). From January 2008, through December 2009, transects totaling 18,183 km were surveyed in order to collect baseline information on the distribution, abundance, and migratory patterns of coastal and marine species. Within Fishermen's project area (a 170-acre area encompassing the future wind turbine array), 611 km of study transects were dedicated to surveying for marine mammals and sea turtles. Marine mammal data were collected over the 2-year period using shipboard surveys, aerial surveys, and passive acoustic monitoring. Records show that bottlenose dolphins and a single unidentified pinniped were the only marine mammal species observed in the project area.

In January 2011, marine mammal observers were onboard the vessels conducting geophysical and geotechnical surveys of the project area. No marine mammal species were sighted during that time. Fishermen's also conducted pre-construction monitoring of the project area in order to fulfill a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection requirement. This study was comprised of seven survey track lines, spaced about 2 km apart, and included a 2-km radius buffer zone around the proposed turbine locations. A total of 389 transects were surveyed totaling more than 140 survey hours over 2,601 km from May 2010, through May 2011. During this study, observers sighted bottlenose dolphins, fin whales, humpback whales, minke whales, harbor porpoises, and harbor seals. Bottlenose dolphins were most commonly seen and only six mysticetes (baleen whales) were observed during the study. Sightings of fin whales, humpback whales, minke whales, and harbor porpoises were only observed from late September to mid-April. Based on sightings data, habitat preference, seasonality, and the proposed project timeline, all species from Table 1 except bottlenose dolphins, harbor porpoises, and harbor seals are considered unlikely to be impacted by the proposed pile driving operations and are not discussed further. Detailed information on the species likely to be harassed during pile driving is provided below.

Bottlenose dolphins are found in a wide variety of habitats at both tropical and temperate latitudes. Depending on their habitat, they might feed on benthic fish, invertebrates, and pelagic or mesopelagic fish. They are often found in groups, most commonly of two to 15 individuals. NMFS currently recognizes 15 stocks of bottlenose dolphins in the Atlantic Ocean. Bottlenose dolphins in the proposed project area would likely be part of the Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal stock. The coastal stock is found along the inner continental shelf and around islands and often moves into or resides in bays, estuaries, and the lower reaches of rivers and has an estimated abundance of 9,604. There are insufficient data to determine the population trends for these stocks. Bottlenose dolphins are not listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but the Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal stock is considered depleted under the MMPA. More information, including stock assessment reports, can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/bottlenosedolphin.htm. Bottlenose dolphins, like other dolphin species and most toothed whales, are in the mid-frequency hearing group, with an estimated functional hearing range of 150 Hz to 160 kHz (Southall et al., 2007).

Harbor porpoises reside in northern temperate and subarctic coastal and offshore waters. They are commonly found in bays, estuaries, harbors, and fjords less than 200 m deep. In the western North Atlantic, harbor porpoises range from west Greenland to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Harbor porpoises in U.S. waters are divided into 10 stocks, based on genetics, movement patterns, and management. During summer months, harbor porpoises are concentrated in the northern Gulf of Maine and southern Bay of Fundy region. Any harbor porpoises encountered during the proposed project would be part of the Gulf of Maine-Bay of Fundy stock, which has an estimated abundance of 89,054 animals. Population trends for all U.S. stocks of harbor porpoises are currently unknown. Gulf of Maine-Bay of Fundy harbor porpoises are not listed under the ESA nor considered depleted under the MMPA. More information, including stock assessment reports, can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/harborporpoise.htm. Harbor porpoises are considered high-frequency cetaceans and their estimated auditory bandwidth (lower to upper frequency hearing cut-off) ranges from 200 Hz to 180 kHz (Southall et al., 2007).

Harbor seals are typically found in temperate coastal habitats and use rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice as haul outs and pupping sites. On the east coast, they range from the Canadian Arctic to southern New England, New York, and occasionally the Carolinas. There are an estimated 91,000 harbor seals in the western North Atlantic stock and the population is increasing. There are three well known, long-term haul out sites in New Jersey: Sandy Hook, Barnegat Inlet, and Great Bay. However, the closest haul out (Great Bay) is about 21 km north of the proposed project area. Harbor seal abundance at this site has increased since 1994 and shows strong seasonality, with seals consistently present between November and April (Slocum et al., 1999; Slocum et al., 2005). No other haul out sites were identified during aerial surveys for the ecological baseline study. Harbor seals are considered the most common seal species present in New Jersey waters, although gray seals, harp seals, and hooded seals, also appear in winter months. Harbor seals are not listed under the ESA nor considered depleted under the MMPA. More information, including stock assessment reports, can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/harborseal.htm.

Pinnipeds produce a wide range of social signals, most occurring at relatively low frequencies (Southall et al., 2007), suggesting that hearing is keenest at these frequencies. Pinnipeds communicate acoustically both on land and underwater, but have different hearing capabilities dependent upon the medium (air or water). Based on numerous studies, as summarized in Southall et al. (2007), pinnipeds are more sensitive to a broader range of sound frequencies underwater than in air. Underwater, pinnipeds can hear frequencies from 75 Hz to 75 kHz. In air, pinnipeds can hear frequencies from 75 Hz to 30 kHz (Southall et al., 2007).

Elevated in-water sound levels from pile driving in the proposed project area may temporarily impact marine mammal behavior. Elevated in-air sound levels are not a concern because the nearest significant pinniped haul-out is 21 km away. Marine mammals are continually exposed to many sources of sound. For example, lightning, rain, sub-sea earthquakes, and animals are natural sound sources throughout the marine environment. Marine mammals produce sounds in various contexts and use sound for various biological functions including, but not limited to, (1) social interactions; (2) foraging; (3) orientation; and (4) predator detection. Interference with producing or receiving these sounds may result in adverse impacts. Audible distance or received levels will depend on the sound source, ambient noise, and the sensitivity of the receptor (Richardson et al., 1995). Marine mammal reactions to sound may depend on sound frequency, ambient sound, what the animal is doing, and the animal's distance from the sound source (Southall et al., 2007).

Marine mammals may experience temporary or permanent hearing impairment when exposed to loud sounds. Hearing impairment is classified by temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift (PTS). There are no empirical data for when PTS first occurs in marine mammals; therefore, it must be estimated from when TTS first occurs and from the rate of TTS growth with increasing exposure levels. PTS is likely if the animal's hearing threshold is reduced by ≥ 40 dB of TTS. PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall et al., 2007) and occurs in a specific frequency range and amount. Irreparable damage to the inner or outer cochlear hair cells may cause PTS; however, other mechanisms are also involved, such as exceeding the elastic limits of certain tissues and membranes in the middle and inner ears and resultant changes in the chemical composition of the inner ear fluids (Southall et al., 2007). Due to proposed mitigation measures and source levels in the proposed project area, NMFS does not expect marine mammals to be exposed to sound levels associated with PTS.

TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be louder in order to be heard. TTS can last from minutes or hours to days, but is recoverable. TTS also occurs in specific frequency ranges; therefore, an animal might experience a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity only between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz, for example. The amount of change in hearing sensitivity is also variable and could be reduced by 6 dB or 30 dB, for example. Recent literature highlights the inherent complexity of predicting TTS onset in marine mammals, as well as the importance of considering exposure duration when assessing potential impacts (Mooney et al., 2009a, 2009b; Kastak et al., 2007). Generally, with sound exposures of equal energy, quieter sounds (lower SPL) of longer duration were found to induce TTS onset more than louder sounds (higher SPL) of shorter duration (more similar to subbotom profilers). For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS-onset threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Southall et al. (2007) considers a 6 dB TTS (i.e., baseline thresholds are elevated by 6 dB) to be a sufficient definition of TTS-onset. NMFS considers TTS as Level B harassment that is mediated by physiological effects on the auditory system; however, NMFS does not consider onset TTS to be the lowest level at which Level B harassment may occur. A limited number of behavioral studies have been performed to assess the responses of mid-frequency cetaceans (such as bottlenose dolphins) to multiple pulses. Combined data show a range of behavioral responses, from temporary pauses in vocalization for received levels of 80 to 90 dB, to a lack of observable reactions for received levels of 120 to 180 dB (Southall, et al., 2007). Data on behavioral reactions of pinnipeds to multiple pulses is also limited, but suggests that exposures in the 150 to 180 dB range have limited potential to induce avoidance behavior (Southall et al., 2007). Some studies suggest that harbor porpoises may be more sensitive to sound than other odontocetes (Lucke et al., 2009 and Kastelein et al., 2011). Although TTS onset may occur in harbor porpoises at lower received levels (when compared to other odontocetes), NMFS' Level B harassment threshold is based on the onset of behavioral harassment, not TTS. However, the potential for TTS is considered in NMFS' analysis of potential impacts from Level B harassment.

Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific. An animal's perception of and response to (in both nature and magnitude) an acoustic event can be influenced by prior experience, perceived proximity, bearing of the sound, familiarity of the sound, etc. (Southall et al., 2007). If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or populations. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). 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 would be present within a particular distance of activities and/or exposed to a particular level of sound. In most cases, this approach likely overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that would be affected in some biologically-important manner.

The only sounds from the proposed activity expected to result in the harassment of marine mammals are impulse sounds associated with impact pile driving. Southall et al. (2007) addresses behavioral responses of marine mammals to impulse sounds (like impact pile driving). The studies that address the responses of mid-frequency cetaceans to impulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying similarity to boomers), including: Small explosives, airgun arrays, pulse sequences, and natural and artificial pulses. The data show no clear indication of increasing probability and severity of response with increasing received level. Behavioral responses seem to vary depending on species and stimuli. Data on behavioral responses of high-frequency cetaceans to multiple pulses is not available. Although individual elements of some non-pulse sources (such as pingers) could be considered pulses, it is believed that some mammalian auditory systems perceive them as non-pulse sounds (Southall et al., 2007).

The studies that address the responses of pinnipeds in water to impulse sounds include data gathered in the field and related to several different sources, including: Small explosives, impact pile driving, and airgun arrays. Quantitative data on reactions of pinnipeds to impulse sounds is limited, but a general finding is that exposures in the 150 to 180 dB range generally have limited potential to induce avoidance behavior (Southall et al., 2007).

No impacts to marine mammal reproduction are anticipated because there are no known pinniped rookeries or cetacean breeding grounds within the proposed project area. Marine mammals may avoid the area around the hammer, thereby reducing their exposure to elevated sound levels. NMFS expects any impacts to marine mammal behavior to be temporary, Level B harassment (for example, avoidance or alteration of behavior). Fishermen's conservatively assumes a maximum of 24 pile driving days may occur over the validity of the IHA. Marine mammal injury or mortality is not likely, as the 180 dB isopleth (NMFS' Level A harassment threshold for cetaceans) for the impact hammer is expected to be less than a 50-m radius. Fishermen's proposes to continuously monitor a 1,000-m area around the sound source and reduce or cease all pile driving to prevent Level A harassment to marine mammals.

The installation of piles and submarine electric cable would result in both temporary disturbance and limited, but permanent, loss of benthic habitat. These effects would be limited to the area within the project footprint and along the cable route where sediment disturbing activities would occur. The cable installation process would temporarily affect benthic resources and habitat by entrainment of microorganisms and displacement or burial of other benthic resources. However, since the jetting and cable laying process occurs very slowly (less than 1 knot speed by the vessel), most mobile organisms are likely to avoid the area. Installation may result in a temporary loss of forage items and a temporary reduction in the amount of benthic habitat available for foraging marine mammals. However, there are no known foraging grounds around the project area, so marine mammals in the area would likely be foraging opportunistically. The cable route has been designed to avoid submerged aquatic vegetation. Impacts associated with cable installation and vessel anchoring would be temporary and localized.

Pile driving (resulting in temporary ensonification) may impact prey species and marine mammals by causing avoidance or abandonment of the area; however these impacts are expected to be local and temporary. Installation of the jacketed foundations and associated scour protection would result in the permanent loss of less than one acre of benthic habitat. However, this loss is not likely to have a measurable adverse impact on marine mammal foraging activity due to the limited size and lack of known or significant foraging grounds in the proposed project area. The total impacted area represents less than one percent of similar bottom habitat in the proposed project area. Furthermore, the vertical foundation structure that would be added to the environment may provide additional habitat and foraging opportunities to marine species. The effects of habitat loss or modification to marine mammals are expected to be insignificant or discountable.

In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth, where applicable, the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. Fishermen's proposed the following mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals:

The purpose of an exclusion zone is to prevent Level A harassment (injury) of any marine mammal species. Fishermen's proposes to establish a radius around each pile driving site that would be continuously monitored for marine mammals. If a marine mammal is observed nearing or entering this perimeter, Fishermen's would reduce hammering power (or stop hammering) to reduce the sound pressure levels. More specifically, Fishermen's would establish a preliminary 1,000-m exclusion zone around each pile driving site, based on the estimated rates of sound attenuation discussed earlier in this notice. This distance is considered conservative because it would encompass the estimated 180-dB isopleth, within which injury could occur, plus an additional 950-m buffer. The 1,000-m exclusion zone would also encompass the estimated 160-dB isopleth (less than 500 m), within which behavioral harassment could occur. Fishermen's would perform field verification of the impact hammer's resulting sound pressure levels to ensure that estimated distances to the 180-dB (Level A) and 160-dB (Level B) isopleths are accurate. Once hydroacoustic monitoring is conducted, the exclusion zone may be adjusted accordingly so that marine mammals are not exposed to Level A harassment sound pressure levels. Any new exclusion zone would encompass the 180-dB and 160-dB isopleth to avoid any takes of ESA-listed species. The exclusion zone would be monitored continuously during impact pile driving to ensure that no marine mammals enter the area. If a marine mammal is nearing or enters the 1,000-m zone, hammering would be reduced to 50 percent capacity, which would reduce the 160 dB isopleth to about 300 m. If a marine mammal continues to move toward the Level B harassment zone, Fishermen's is prepared to stop all pile driving activities in order to prevent Level A harassment to marine mammals. Fishermen's initially proposed having a single protected species observer (PSO) to monitor the exclusion zone. However, following NMFS recommendation, Fishermen's plans to use two PSOs, each responsible for monitoring a 180-degree field of vision. The PSOs would be stationed aboard a dedicated support vessel that would patrol the exclusion zone throughout pile driving.

If a PSO sees a marine mammal within or approaching the exclusion zone (1,000 m) prior to start of impact pile driving, the observer would notify the construction manager (or other authorized individual) who would then be required to delay pile driving until the marine mammal has moved outside of the exclusion zone or if the animal has not been resighted within 30 minutes. If a marine mammal is sighted within or on a path toward the exclusion zone during pile driving, pile driving would be reduced to 50 percent capacity (a soft start level), which would reduce the size of the harassment zones. If an animal continues to move toward the sound source, then pile driving operations will be stopped until the animal has moved outside of the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have lapsed since the last sighting.

A “soft-start” technique would be used at the beginning of each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before the pile hammer reaches full energy. The soft start requires an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy with a 1-minute waiting period between subsequent three-strike sets. If a marine mammal is observed within the exclusion zone prior to pile driving, or during the soft start, the resident engineer (or other authorized individual) would delay pile driving until the animal has move outside of the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have lapsed since the last sighting. Soft-start procedures would be conducted any time hammering ceases for more than 30 minutes.

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for IHAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present.

Fishermen's proposes to conduct field verification of the exclusion zone during pile driving of the first three jacket foundations to ensure that the estimated harassment isopleths are accurate. Fishermen's proposes taking acoustic measurements during the last half (deepest segment) of pile driving for any given jacket foundation leg. NMFS further proposes that acoustic measurements be taken during the entire duration of pile driving of the first three jacket foundations (as opposed to the last half of pile driving) to ensure that the highest sound pressure levels are measured. Fishermen's proposes establishing one reference location at a distance of 100 m from the sound source. They would take sound measurements at the reference location at two depths (one near the middle of the water column and one near the bottom of the water column). Two additional in-water spot measurements would be taken in two different directions of the pile driving site. Sound measurements would also be made at locations closer to or farther from the sound source, as necessary, to establish the distances to the Level B and Level A harassment zones. NMFS further proposes that sound measurements be taken 10 m from the pile, so the measurements can be treated considered “source level” and compared with other industry-collected data. NMFS also proposes that 90 percent of the energy window from each blow be integrated into Fishermen's sound analysis when computing RMS sound pressure levels.

As explained in the Proposed Mitigation section of this notice, there would be two PSOs monitoring the exclusion zone (1,000 m). Because the exclusion zone encompasses both the Level B and Level A harassment isopleths, PSOs can record behavioral information of animals visible outside of the exclusion zone. PSOs would monitor the exclusion zone for at least 30 minutes prior to soft start, during pile driving, and for 30 minutes after pile driving is completed. Protected species observers would be provided with the equipment necessary to effectively monitor for marine mammals (for example, high-quality binoculars, compass, and range-finder) in order to determine if animals have entered into the exclusion zone and to record species, behaviors, and responses to pile driving. Fishermen's would provide weekly status reports to NMFS that include a summary of the previous week's monitoring activities and an estimate of the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed as a result of pile driving. PSOs would submit a comprehensive report to NMFS within 90 days of completion of pile driving.

The report would include data from marine mammal sightings (such as date, time, location, species, group size, and behavior), any observed reactions to construction, distance to operating pile hammer, and construction activities occurring at time of sighting and environmental data for the period (wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility).

In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, Fishermen's would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to Michael.Payne@noaa.gov and Michelle.Magliocca@noaa.gov and the Northeast Regional Stranding Coordinator ( Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov ). The report must include the following information:

• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

• Name and type of vessel involved;

• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;

• Description of the incident;

• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;

• Water depth;

• Environmental conditions ( e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;

• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

• Fate of the animal(s); and

• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Fishermen's to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Fishermen's may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

In the event that Fishermen's discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), Fishermen's would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to Michael.Payne@noaa.gov and Michelle.Magliocca@noaa.gov and the Northeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at 978-281-9300 ( Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov ). The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with Fishermen's to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

In the event that Fishermen's discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Fishermen's would report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to Michael.Payne@noaa.gov and Michelle.Magliocca@noaa.gov and the NMFS Northeast Stranding Hotline (866-755-6622) and/or by email to the Northeast Regional Stranding Coordinator ( Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov ), within 24 hrs of the discovery. Fishermen's would provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

Current NMFS practice regarding exposure of marine mammals to anthropogenic noise is that in order to avoid the potential for injury (PTS), cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive sounds of 180 and 190 dB or above, respectively. This level is considered precautionary as it is likely that more intense sounds would be required before injury would actually occur (Southall et al., 2007). Potential for behavioral Level B harassment is considered to have occurred when marine mammals are exposed to sounds at or above 160 dB for impulse sounds (such as impact pile driving) and 120 dB for non-pulse noise (such as vibratory pile driving).

Distances to NMFS' harassment thresholds were calculated based on the expected sound levels at each source and the expected attenuation rate of sound. Fishermen's proposed 1,000-m exclusion zone is larger than both the Level A and Level B harassment zones. This mitigation measure minimizes potential impacts to marine mammals from increased sound exposures and means that Fishermen's would significantly reduce sound exposures before an animal ever enters the Level B harassment zone (less than 500 m). The difference between the exclusion zone (1,000 m) and the Level A harassment threshold (less than 50 m) provides PSOs additional time and adequate visibility to prevent marine mammals from being exposed to injurious sound levels if an animal (e.g., a small dolphin or pinniped) enters the exclusion zone undetected.

Fishermen's estimated the number of marine mammals potentially taken by using their 2010-2011 pre-construction survey data as site-specific density estimates for the project area over a 12-month period. During that survey, Fishermen's observed 260 bottlenose dolphins, three humpback whales, two fin whales, one minke whale, two harbor seals, and five harbor porpoises. However, the survey was performed over a 12-month period, whereas pile driving would only take place between May and June. The only marine mammal species observed during May and June were bottlenose dolphins and an unidentified harbor seal. Fishermen's considered the expected number of pile driving days and requested authorization for the Level B incidental take of five bottlenose dolphins. NMFS determined that this number does not adequately account for the likelihood that numerous animals went undetected during visual surveys. To account for this, NMFS multiplied species group size by the maximum number of pile driving days. More specifically, NMFS used the average group size of bottlenose dolphins observed between May and June during the pre-construction survey and multiplied this number by 24 (the maximum number of pile driving days. Because harbor porpoises were never observed during the months of May and June, NMFS conservatively used the maximum group size (two) of harbor porpoises observed during the entire pre-construction survey. NMFS also used the maximum group size (two) of harbor seals observed during the entire pre-construction survey. These calculations are illustrated below in Table 2.

NMFS is proposing to authorize the take of 120 bottlenose dolphins, 48 harbor porpoises, and 48 harbor seals. The increase in proposed take is based on the likelihood that smaller animals may not have been detected during surveys, but may be present in the proposed project area during pile driving. These numbers are conservative, do not account for mitigation measures, and indicate the maximum number of animals expected to occur within proposed project area—an area much larger than the 1,000-m exclusion zone isopleth. Takes of other species (e.g., humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale) were not proposed because they are highly likely to be sighted before entering the exclusion zone. Furthermore, the proposed activity is planned to occur primarily during summer months when these species are unlikely to be in the area.

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.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a number of factors which include, but are not limited to, the number of anticipated injuries or mortalities (none of which would be authorized here), number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment, and the context in which takes occur.

As described above, marine mammals would not be exposed to activities or sound levels which would result in injury (PTS), serious injury, or mortality. The proposed project area is not considered significant habitat for marine mammals. The closest significant pinniped haul out is 21 km away, which is well outside the project area's largest harassment zone. Marine mammals approaching the action area would likely be traveling or opportunistically foraging. The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize is considered small (less than three percent) relative to the estimated populations of 9,604 bottlenose dolphins, 89,054 harbor porpoises, and 91,000 harbor seals. Marine mammals may be temporarily impacted by pile driving noise. However, marine mammals may avoid the area, thereby reducing exposure and impacts, and mitigation measures would minimize any impacts and further reduce the risk of injury or mortality prevent injury. Pile driving activities are expected to occur for about 15-24 days total. There is no anticipated effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival of affected marine mammals. Based on the application and subsequent analysis, the impact of the described pile driving operations may result in, at most, short-term modification of behavior by small numbers of marine mammals within the action area. Marine mammals may avoid the area or temporarily alter their behavior at time of exposure.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS preliminarily determines that Fishermen's proposed pile driving operations would result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, and that the total taking would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Fishermen's is not requesting, nor is NMFS proposing, take of ESA-listed species; therefore, ESA consultation is not necessary for issuance of the proposed IHA.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), as implemented by the regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, NMFS is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the environmental impacts of issuance of a 1-year IHA. Upon completion, this EA will be available on the NMFS Web site listed in the beginning of this document (see ADDRESSES ).

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to authorize, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by United States citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). The authorization must set forth the permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings. 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. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS's review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the public comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

NMFS received an application on December 23, 2011, from SIO for the taking by harassment, of marine mammals, incidental to conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey in the south-eastern Pacific Ocean. SIO, a part of the University of California San Diego, with research funding from the NSF, plans to conduct a low-energy seismic survey in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean off the coast of Chile during May, 2012, for approximately five to 11 days. The survey will use a pair of Generator Injector (GI) airguns each with a discharge volume of 45 cubic inches (in 3 ). SIO plans to conduct the proposed survey from approximately May 4 to 18, 2012. The proposed seismic survey will be conducted in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Chile. On behalf of SIO, the U.S. State Department will seek authorization from Chile for clearance to work in its EEZ.

SIO plans to use one source vessel, the R/V Melville ( Melville ) and a seismic airgun array to collect seismic reflection and refraction profiles to monitor the post-seismic response of the outer acretionary prism, the area where sediments are accreted onto the non-subducting tectonic plate at the convergent plate boundary off of the coast of Chile. In addition to the proposed operations of the seismic airgun array, SIO intends to operate a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a sub-bottom profiler (SBP) continuously throughout the survey.

Acoustic stimuli ( i.e., increased underwater sound) generated during the operation of the seismic airgun array may have the potential to cause a short-term behavioral disturbance for marine mammals in the survey area. This is the principal means of marine mammal taking associated with these activities and SIO has requested an authorization to take 20 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment. Take is not expected to result from the use of the MBES or SBP, for reasons discussed in this notice; nor is take expected to result from collision with the vessel because it is a single vessel moving at a relatively slow speed during seismic acquisition within the survey, for a relatively short period of time (approximately five to 11 days). It is likely that any marine mammal would be able to avoid the vessel.

SIO's proposed seismic survey in the south-eastern Pacific Ocean will take place for approximately 5 to 11 days in May, 2012 (see Figure 1 of the IHA application). The proposed seismic survey will take place in water depths ranging from approximately 1,000 to 5,300 meters (m) (3,280.8 to 17,388.5 feet [ft]) and the program will consist of approximately 1,145 kilometers (km) (618.3 nautical miles [nmi]) of seismic survey tracklines (see Figure 1 of the IHA application). The survey will take place in the area approximately 34° to 36° South, 72° to 74° West, off the coast of Chile. The project is scheduled to occur from approximately May 4 to 18, 2012. Some minor deviation from these dates is possible, depending on logistics and weather.

The survey will involve one source vessel, the Melville. For the seismic component of the research program, the Melville will deploy an array of two low-energy Sercel Generator Injector (GI) airguns as an energy source (each with a discharge volume of 45 in 3 ) at a tow depth of 2 m (6.6 ft). The acoustic receiving system will consist of a 200 to 800 m (656.2 to 2,624.7 ft) hydrophone streamer with up to 48 channels with 12.5 m (41 ft) channel spacing, and broadband Ocean Bottom Seismometers (OBSs). The energy to the airguns is compressed air supplied by compressors on board the source vessel. As the airgun is towed along the survey lines, the hydrophone streamer will receive the returning acoustic signals and transfer the data to the on-board processing system. The OBSs acquire the signal, process the data, and log it internally until the instrument is retrieved and the data is recovered.

SIO plans to use conventional low-energy seismic methodology to monitor the post-seismic response of the outer accretionary prism, the area where sediments are accreted onto the non-subducting tectonic plate at the convergent plate boundary. To provide constraints on the fault structure and seismic stratigraphy in the accretionary wedge, high resolution seismic data will be acquired using two GI airguns shot simultaneously. Simultaneous shots from both airguns will provide penetration to basement in the trench and clearly define fault structures and folds in the slop basin sediments that overlie the accretionary complex. The primary tracklines, approximately 569 km (307.2 nmi), identified in Figure 1 of the IHA application, will be surveyed first. Depending on the weather, quality and at sea conditions, efforts will be made to survey the secondary tracklines, approximately 576 km (311 nmi), identified in Figure 1 of the IHA application. During the survey OBSs will be deployed and survey profiles will be taken along the tracklines that extend from the trench across the accretionary complex to the region of greatest slip. These data will be processed onboard the vessel and will be used to optimize the location of remaining profiles to be collected within the survey site area. In addition to the operations of the airgun array, a MBES and SBP will also be operated from the Melville continuously throughout the cruise. There will be additional seismic operations associated with equipment testing, start-up, and possible line changes or repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. In SIO's calculations, 25% has been added for those contingency operations.

All planned geophysical data acquisition activities will be conducted by technicians provided by SIO, with on-board assistance by the scientists who have proposed the study. The Principal Investigator (PI) is Dr. Anne Trehu of Oregon State University. The vessel will be self-contained, and the crew will live aboard the vessel for the entire cruise.

The Melville is operated by the SIO under a charter agreement with the U.S. Office of Naval Research. The title of the vessel is held by the U.S. Navy. The Melville will tow the two GI airgun array, as well as the hydrophone streamer, along predetermined lines.

The vessel has a length of 85 m (278.9 ft); a beam of 14 m (45.9 ft), and a full load draft of 5.0 m (16.4 ft). The ship is powered by two 1,385 horsepower (hp) propulsion General Electric motors and a 900 hp retracting azimuthing bow thruster. An operations speed of approximately 8 to 12 km/hour (hr) (4 to 6 knots [kt]) and 15 to 18.5 km/hr (8 to 10 kt) will be used during seismic acquisition within the survey areas and between stations, respectively. When not towing seismic survey gear, the Melville cruises at 21.7 km/hr (11.7 kt) and has a maximum speed of 25.9 km/hr (14 kt). The Melville has an operating range of approximately 18,630 km (10,059.4 nmi) (the distance the vessel can travel without refueling).

The vessel will also serve as a platform for which vessel-based Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will watch for marine mammals before and during the proposed airgun operations.

The Melville will deploy and tow an array consisting of a pair of 45 in 3 Sercel GI airgun and a streamer containing hydrophones along predetermined lines. Seismic pulses will be emitted at intervals of approximately eight to 12 seconds (s). At speeds of approximately eight to 12 km/hr through the water, the eight to 12 s spacing corresponds to shot intervals of approximately 25 m (82 ft).

The generator chamber of each GI airgun, the one responsible for introducing the sound pulse into the ocean, is 45 in 3 , depending on how it is configured. The injector chamber injects air into the previously-generated bubble to maintain its shape, and does not introduce more sound into the water. The two GI airguns will be towed 8 m (26.2 ft) apart side-by-side, 21 m (68.9 ft) behind the Melville, at a depth of 2 m (6.6 ft). Depending on the configuration, the total effective volume will be 90 in 3 or 210 in 3 . As a precautionary measure, SIO assumes that the larger volume will be used.

As the GI airguns are towed along the survey lines, the towed hydrophone array in the streamer receive the reflected signals and transfer the data to the on-board processing system. The OBSs acquire the signal, process the data, and log it internally until the instrument is retrieved and the data is recovered. Given the relatively short streamer length behind the vessel, the turning rate of the vessel while the gear is deployed is much higher than the limit of five degrees per minute for a seismic vessel towing a streamer of more typical length (much greater than 1 km [0.5 nmi]). Thus maneuverability of the vessel is not limited much during operations.

This section includes a brief explanation of the sound measurements frequently used in the discussions of acoustic effects in this document. Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, and is usually measured in micropascals (μPa), where 1 pascal (Pa) is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. Sound pressure level (SPL) is expressed as the ratio of a measured sound pressure and a reference level. The commonly used reference pressure level in underwater acoustics is 1 μPa, and the units for SPLs are dB re: 1 μPa. SPL (in decibels [dB]) = 20 log (pressure/reference pressure).

SPL is an instantaneous measurement and can be expressed as the peak, the peak-peak (p-p), or the root mean square (rms). Root mean square, which is the square root of the arithmetic average of the squared instantaneous pressure values, is typically used in discussions of the effects of sounds on vertebrates and all references to SPL in this document refer to the root mean square unless otherwise noted. SPL does not take the duration of a sound into account.

Airguns function by venting high-pressure air into the water which creates an air bubble. The pressure signature of an individual airgun consists of a sharp rise and then fall in pressure, followed by several positive and negative pressure excursions caused by the oscillation of the resulting air bubble. The oscillation of the air bubble transmits sounds downward through the seafloor and the amount of sound transmitted in the near horizontal directions is reduced. However, the airgun array also emits sounds that travel horizontally toward non-target areas.

The nominal downward-directed source levels of the airgun arrays used by SIO on the Melville do not represent actual sound levels that can be measured at any location in the water. Rather they represent the level that would be found 1 m (3.3 ft) from a hypothetical point source emitting the same total amount of sound as is emitted by the combined GI airguns. The actual received level at any location in the water near the GI airguns will not exceed the source level of the strongest individual source. In this case, that will be about 234.4 dB re 1 μPam peak, or 239.8 dB re 1 μPam peak-to-peak. However, the difference between rms and peak or peak-to-peak values for a given pulse depends on the frequency content and duration of the pulse, among other factors.

Accordingly, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (L-DEO) has predicted the received sound levels in relation to distance and direction from the two GI airgun array. A detailed description of L-DEO's modeling for marine seismic source arrays for species mitigation is provided in Appendix A of NSF's EA. These are the nominal source levels applicable to downward propagation. The effective source levels for horizontal propagation are lower than those for downward propagation when the source consists of numerous airguns spaced apart from one another.

Appendix A of NSF's EA discusses the characteristics of the airgun pulses. NMFS refers the reviewers to the application and EA documents for additional information.

Received sound levels have been modeled by L-DEO for a number of airgun configurations, including two 45 in 3 GI airguns, in relation to distance and direction from the airguns (see Figure 2 of the IHA application). The model does not allow for bottom interactions, and is most directly applicable to deep water. Based on the modeling, estimates of the maximum distances from the GI airguns where sound levels of 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are predicted to be received in deep water are shown in Table 1 (see Table 1 of the IHA application).

Empirical data concerning the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms) distances were acquired for various airgun arrays based on measurements during the acoustic verification studies conducted by L-DEO in the northern GOM in 2003 (Tolstoy et al., 2004) and 2007 to 2008 (Tolstoy et al., 2009). Results of the 36 airgun array are not relevant for the two GI airguns to be used in the proposed survey. The empirical data for the 6, 10, 12, and 20 airgun arrays indicate that, for deep water, the L-DEO model tends to overestimate the received sound levels at a given distance (Tolstoy et al., 2004). Measurements were not made for the two GI airgun array in deep water, however, SIO proposes to use the EZ predicted by L-DEO's model for the proposed GI airgun operations in deep water, although they are likely conservative given the empirical proposed GI airgun operations in deep water. Using the L-DEO model, Table 1 (below) shows the distances at which three rms sound levels are expected to be received from the two GI airgun array. The 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) distances are the safety criteria for potential Level A harassment as specified by NMFS (2000) and are applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. If marine mammals are detected within or about to enter the appropriate EZ, the airguns will be shut-down immediately. Table 1 summarizes the predicted distances at which sound levels (160, 180, and 190 dB [rms]) are expected to be received from the two GI airgun array operating in deep water depths.

The Melville will operate a Kongsberg EM 122 MBES operates at 10.5 to 13 (usually 12) kHz and is hull-mounted on the Melville. The transmitting beamwidth is 1° fore-aft and 150° athwartship. The maximum source level is 242 dB re 1 μPam (rms). Each “ping” consists of eight (in water >1,000 m deep) or four (<1,000 m) successive fan-shaped transmissions, each ensonifying a sector that extends 1° fore-aft. Continuous-wave pulses increase from 2 to 15 milliseconds (ms) long in water depths up to 2,600 m (8,530.2 ft), and FM chirp pulses up to 100 ms long are used in water greater than 2,600 m. The successive transmissions span an overall cross-track angular extent of about 150°, with 2 ms gaps between the pulses for successive sectors.

The Melville will also operate an Knudsen Engineering Model 3260 SBP continuously throughout the cruise simultaneously with the MBES to map and provide information about the sedimentary features that occur below the sea floor. The SBP is capable of reaching depths of 10,000 m (32,808.4 ft). The beam is transmitted as a 27° cone, which is directed downward by a 3.5 kHz transducer array mounted on the hull of the Melville. The nominal power output is 10 kilowatts (kW) or 222 dB re 1 μPam. The ping duration is up to 64 ms, and ping interval is 1 s. A common mode of operation is to broadcast five pings at 1 s intervals followed by a 5 s pause. The 12 kHz section is seldom used in survey mode on the Melville because of overlap with the operating frequency of the Kongsberg EM 122 MBES.

NMFS expects that acoustic stimuli resulting from the proposed operation of the two GI airgun array has the potential to harass marine mammals, incidental to the conduct of the proposed seismic survey. NMFS expects these disturbances to be temporary and result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior and/or low-level physiological effects (Level B harassment) of small numbers of certain species of marine mammals. NMFS does not expect that the movement of the Melville, during the conduct of the seismic survey, has the potential to harass marine mammals because of the relatively slow operation speed of the vessel (approximately 8 to 12 km/hr [4 to 6 kt] and 15-18.5 km/hr [8 to 10 kt]) during seismic acquisition.

Approximately 10 broadband OBSs will be deployed and recovered by the Melville during the proposed survey. L-DEO OBS08 model broadband OBSs will be used during the cruise. This type of OBS has a height of approximately 122 centimeters (cm) (48 inches [in]) and width and depth of 76.2 x 106.7 cm (30 x 42 in). The anchor is made of two steel cylinders approximately 15 cm (5.9 in) in diameter and 46 cm (18.1 in) in length. Each cylinder weighs approximately 75 pounds (lbs) (34 kilograms [kg]) in the air. OBSs will remain on the seafloor to continue to collect data for approximately one year. Once an OBS is ready to be retrieved, an acoustic release transponder interrogates the instrument at a frequency of 9 to 11 kilohertz (kHz), and a response is received at a frequency of 9 to 13 kHz. The burn-wire release assembly is then activated, and the instrument is released from the anchor to float to the surface.

The Melville is expected to depart and return to Valparaiso, Chile. The cruise is scheduled to occur for approximately five to 11 days from May 4 to 18, 2012. Some minor deviation from this schedule is possible, depending on logistics and weather. The survey will occur in the area approximately 34° to 35° South, approximately 72° to 74° West (see Figure 1 of the IHA application). Water depths in the survey area generally range from approximately 1,000 to 5,300 m (3,280.8 to 17,388.5 ft). The seismic survey will be conducted in the EEZ of Chile, approximately 50 km (27 nmi) off the coast.

Thirty-two marine mammal species could occur in the south-eastern Pacific Ocean survey area. Twenty-eight cetacean species (22 odontocetes and 6 mysticetes) and four pinniped species could occur in the south-eastern Pacific Ocean study area. Several of these species are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), including the humpback ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), sei ( Balaenoptera borealis ), fin ( Balaenoptera physalus ), blue ( Balaenoptera musculus ), and sperm ( Physeter macrocephalus ) whale.

An additional 12 cetacean species, although present in the wider south-eastern Pacific Ocean, likely would not be found in the proposed seismic survey area because their ranges in the survey area are extralimital, or they are typically found in coastal water. Southern right whales ( Eubalaena australis ) are listed as endangered under the ESA. Sightings are seen on rare occasions off the coasts of Peru and Chile (Aguayo et al., 1992; Santillan et al., 2004), although females with calves have been observed between June and October. Given the size of this population, estimated at 50 individuals, in Chile and Peru (IWC, 2007; ICW, 2007b) and the rarity of the species in the survey area, it is unlikely that individuals from this subpopulation will be encountered. Pygmy right whales ( Caperea marginata ) are rarely seen at sea, but are known from stranding records off Chile (Cabrera et al., 2005). Little is known about Arnoux's beaked whale ( Berardius arnuxii ) as they are rarely seen, but typically they are found between the Antarctic continent and 34° South. The northernmost limit of their range overlaps with the survey area, but no records of their occurrence exist within the survey area. The spade toothed beaked whale ( Mesoplodon traversii ) and Shepherd's beaked whale ( Tasmacetus shepherdi ) are uncommon species, but individuals have been described from stranding records in the Juan Fernandez Archipelago in Chile (Reyes et al., 1996) approximately 700 km (378 nmi) west of the survey site. The ginkgo-toothed beaked whale ( Mesoplodon ginkgodens ), pygmy beaked whale ( Mesoplodon peruvianus ), and the long-beaked common dolphin ( Delphinus capensis ) are likely extralimital with distributions mostly north of the survey area. The Commerson's dolphin ( Cephalorhynchus commersonii ), hourglass dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus cruciger ), and southern bottlenose whale ( Hyperoodon planifrons ) are also extralimital in the survey area, but have a northernmost extent that is south of the survey area.

No cetacean distribution and abundance studies have been conducted in the proposed survey area. The closest distribution studies have been in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) and Patagonia, in southern Chile. Several other studies of marine mammal distribution and abundance have been conducted in the wider ETP. The most extensive regional distribution and abundance data come primarily from multi-year vessel surveys conducted by NMFS's Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC). The surveys were conducted during July to December in an area generally extending from 30° North to 18° South from the coastline to 153° West (Wade and Gerrodette, 1993; Ferguson and Barlow, 2001; Gerrodette et al., 2008; and Jackson et al., 2008).

The marine mammals that occur in the proposed survey area belong to three taxonomic groups: odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins), mysticetes (baleen whales), and pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, and walrus). Cetaceans and pinnipeds are the subject of the IHA application to NMFS.

Table 2 (below) presents information on the abundance, distribution, population status, conservation status, and density of the marine mammals that may occur in the proposed survey area during May, 2012.

Refer to Section III and IV of SIO's application for detailed information regarding the abundance and distribution, population status, and life history and behavior of these species and their occurrence in the proposed project area. The application also presents how SIO calculated the estimated densities for the marine mammals in the proposed survey area. NMFS has reviewed these data and determined them to be the best available scientific information for the purposes of the proposed IHA.

Acoustic stimuli generated by the operation of the airguns, which introduce sound into the marine environment, may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of marine mammals in the proposed survey area. The effects of sounds from airgun operations might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, 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). Although the possibility cannot be entirely excluded, it is unlikely that the proposed project would result in any cases of temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or any significant non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Based on the available data and studies described here, some behavioral disturbance is expected, but NMFS expects the disturbance to be localized and short-term.

Studies on marine mammals' tolerance to sound in the natural environment are relatively rare. Richardson et al. (1995) defines tolerance as the occurrence of marine mammals in areas where they are exposed to human activities or man-made noise. In many cases, tolerance develops by the animal habituating to the stimulus ( i.e., the gradual waning of responses to a repeated or ongoing stimulus) (Richardson, et al., 1995; Thorpe, 1963), but because of ecological or physiological requirements, many marine animals may need to remain in areas where they are exposed to chronic stimuli (Richardson, et al., 1995).

Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from airguns are often readily detectable in the water at distances of many kms. Several studies have shown that marine mammals at distances more than a few kms from operating seismic vessels often show no apparent response (see Appendix A[5] in the EA). That is often true even in cases when the pulsed sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal group. Although various baleen whales and toothed whales have been shown to react behaviorally to airgun pulses under some conditions, at other times mammals of both types have shown no over reactions. The relative responsiveness of baleen and toothed whales are quite variable.

The term masking refers to the inability of a subject to recognize the occurrence of an acoustic stimulus as a result of the interference of another acoustic stimulus (Clark et al., 2009). Introduced underwater sound may, through masking, reduce the effective communication distance of a marine mammal species if the frequency of the source is close to that used as a signal by the marine mammal, and if the anthropogenic sound is present for a significant fraction of the time (Richardson et al., 1995).

Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are very few specific data on this. Because of the intermittent nature and low duty cycle of seismic airgun pulses, animals can emit and receive sounds in the relatively quiet intervals between pulses. However, in some situations, reverberation occurs for much or the entire interval between pulses (e.g., Simard et al., 2005; Clark and Gagnon, 2006) which could mask calls. Some baleen and toothed whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses, and their calls can usually be heard between the seismic pulses (e.g., Richardson et al., 1986; McDonald et al., 1995; Greene et al., 1999; Nieukirk et al., 2004; Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et al., 2005a, b, 2006; and Dunn and Hernandez, 2009). However, Clark and Gagnon (2006) reported that fin whales in the northeast Pacific Ocean went silent for an extended period starting soon after the onset of a seismic survey in the area. Similarly, there has been one report that sperm whales ceased calling when exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship (Bowles et al., 1994). However, more recent studies found that they continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses (Madsen et al., 2002; Tyack et al., 2003; Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et al., 2006; and Jochens et al., 2008). Dolphins and porpoises commonly are heard calling while airguns are operating (e.g., Gordon et al., 2004; Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et al., 2005a, b; and Potter et al., 2007). The sounds important to small odontocetes are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are the dominant components of airgun sounds, thus limiting the potential for masking.

In general, NMFS expects the masking effects of seismic pulses to be minor, given the normally intermittent nature of seismic pulses. Refer to Appendix A(4) of NSF's EA for a more detailed discussion of masking effects on marine mammals.

Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, 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 (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007). If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). 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 would be present within a particular distance of industrial activities and/or exposed to a particular level of industrial sound. In most cases, this approach likely overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that would be affected in some biologically-important manner.

The sound criteria used to estimate how many marine mammals might be disturbed to some biologically-important degree by a seismic program are based primarily on behavioral observations of a few species. Scientists have conducted detailed studies on humpback, gray, bowhead ( Balaena mysticetus ), and sperm whales, and on ringed seals ( Phoca hispida ). Less detailed data are available for some other species of baleen whales, small toothed whales, and sea otters, but for many species there are no data on responses to marine seismic surveys.

Baleen Whales —Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating airguns, but avoidance radii are quite variable (reviewed in Richardson et al., 1995). Whales are often reported to show no overt reactions to pulses from large arrays of airguns at distances beyond a few kms, even though the airgun pulses remain well above ambient noise levels out to much longer distances. However, as reviewed in Appendix A(5) of NSF's EA, baleen whales exposed to strong noise pulses from airguns often react by deviating from their normal migration route and/or interrupting their feeding and moving away. In the cases of migrating gray and bowhead whales, the observed changes in behavior appeared to be of little or no biological consequence to the animals (Richardson, et al., 1995). 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 shown that seismic pulses with received levels of 160 to 170 dB re 1 μPa (rms) seem to cause obvious avoidance behavior in a substantial fraction of the animals exposed (Malme et al., 1986, 1988; Richardson et al., 1995). In many areas, seismic pulses from large arrays of airguns diminish to those levels at distances ranging from 4.5 to 14.5 km (2.4 to 7.8 nmi) from the source. A substantial proportion of the baleen whales within those distances may show avoidance or other strong behavioral reactions to the airgun array. Subtle behavioral changes sometimes become evident at somewhat lower received levels, and studies summarized in Appendix A(5) of NSF's EA have shown that some species of baleen whales, notably bowhead and humpback whales, at times, show strong avoidance at received levels lower than 160 to 170 dB re 1 μPa (rms).

McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a) studied the responses of humpback whales off western Australia to a full-scale seismic survey with a 16 airgun array (2,678 in 3 ) and to a single airgun (20 in 3 ) with source level of 227 dB re 1 μPa (p-p). In the 1998 study, they documented that avoidance reactions began at five to eight km (2.7 to 4.3 nmi) from the array, and that those reactions kept most pods approximately three to four km from the operating seismic boat. In the 2000 study, they noted localized displacement during migration of four to five km by traveling pods and seven to 12 km (6.5 nmi) by more sensitive resting pods of cow-calf pairs. Avoidance distances with respect to the single airgun were smaller but consistent with the results from the full array in terms of the received sound levels. The mean received level for initial avoidance of an approaching airgun was 140 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for humpback pods containing females, and at the mean closest point of approach distance the received level was 143 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The initial avoidance response generally occurred at distances of five to eight km from the airgun array and two km from the single airgun. However, some individual humpback whales, especially males, approached within distances of 100 to 400 m (328 to 1,312 ft), where the maximum received level was 179 dB re 1 μPa (rms).

Data collected by observers during several seismic surveys in the Northwest Atlantic showed that sighting rates of humpback whales were significantly greater during non-seismic periods compared with periods when a full array was operating (Moulton and Holst, 2010). In addition, humpback whales were more likely to swim away and less likely to swim towards a vessel during seismic vs. non-seismic periods (Moulton and Holst, 2010).

Humpback whales on their summer feeding grounds 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 to 169 dB re 1 μPa. 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 dB re 1 μPa (rms). However, Moulton and Holst (2010) reported that humpback whales monitored during seismic surveys in the Northwest Atlantic had lower sighting rates and were most often seen swimming away from the vessel during seismic periods compared with periods when airguns were silent.

Studies have 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 and subject to alternative explanations (IAGC, 2004). Also, the evidence was not consistent with subsequent results from the same area of Brazil (Parente et al., 2006), or with 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).

There are no data on reactions of right whales to seismic surveys, but results from the closely-related bowhead whale show that their responsiveness can be quite variable depending on their activity (migrating versus feeding). 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 to 30 km (10.8 to 16.2 nmi) from a medium-sized airgun source at received sound levels of around 120 to 130 dB re 1 μPa (Miller et al., 1999; Richardson et al., 1999; see Appendix A[5] of NSF's EA). However, more recent research on bowhead whales (Miller et al., 2005; Harris et al., 2007) corroborates earlier evidence that, during the summer feeding season, bowheads are not as sensitive to seismic sources. Nonetheless, subtle but statistically significant changes in surfacing-respiration-dive cycles were evident upon statistical analysis (Richardson et al., 1986). In the summer, bowheads typically begin to show avoidance reactions at received levels of about 152 to 178 dB re 1 μPa (Richardson et al., 1986, 1995; Ljungblad et al., 1988; Miller et al., 2005).

Reactions of migrating 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. They estimated, based on small sample sizes, that 50 percent of feeding gray whales stopped 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 re 1 μPa (rms). 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 western Pacific gray whales feeding off Sakhalin Island, Russia (Wursig et al., 1999; Gailey et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2007; Yazvenko et al., 2007a, b), along with data on gray whales off British Columbia (Bain and Williams, 2006).

Various species of Balaenoptera (blue, sei, fin, and minke whales) have occasionally been seen in areas ensonified by airgun pulses (Stone, 2003; MacLean and Haley, 2004; Stone and Tasker, 2006), and calls from blue and fin whales have been localized in areas with airgun operations (e.g., McDonald et al., 1995; Dunn and Hernandez, 2009; Castellote et al., 2010). Sightings by observers on seismic vessels off the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2000 suggest that, during times of good sightability, sighting rates for mysticetes (mainly fin and sei whales) were similar when large arrays of airguns were shooting vs. silent (Stone, 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006). However, these whales tended to exhibit localized avoidance, remaining significantly further (on average) from the airgun array during seismic operations compared with non-seismic periods (Stone and Tasker, 2006). Castellote et al. (2010) reported that singing fin whales in the Mediterranean moved away from an operating airgun array.

Ship-based monitoring studies of baleen whales (including blue, fin, sei, minke, and humpback whales) in the Northwest Atlantic found that overall, this group had lower sighting rates during seismic vs. non-seismic periods (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Baleen whales as a group were also seen significantly farther from the vessel during seismic compared with non-seismic periods, and they were more often seen to be swimming away from the operating seismic vessel (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Blue and minke whales were initially sighted significantly farther from the vessel during seismic operations compared to non-seismic periods; the same trend was observed for fin whales (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Minke whales were most often observed to be swimming away from the vessel when seismic operations were underway (Moulton and Holst, 2010).

Data on short-term reactions by cetaceans to impulsive noises are not necessarily indicative of long-term or biologically significant effects. It is not known whether impulsive sounds affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use in subsequent days or years. However, gray whales have continued to migrate annually along the west coast of North America with substantial increases in the population over recent years, despite intermittent seismic exploration (and much ship traffic) in that area for decades (Appendix A in Malme et al., 1984; Richardson et al., 1995; Allen and Angliss, 2010). The western Pacific gray whale population did not seem affected by a seismic survey in its feeding ground during a previous year (Johnson et al., 2007). Similarly, bowhead whales have continued to travel to the eastern Beaufort Sea each summer, and their numbers have increased notably, despite seismic exploration in their summer and autumn range for many years (Richardson et al., 1987; Allen and Angliss, 2010).

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 and (in more detail) in Appendix A of NSF's EA have been reported for toothed whales. However, there are recent systematic studies on sperm whales (e.g., Gordon et al., 2006; Madsen et al., 2006; Winsor and Mate, 2006; Jochens et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2009). 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; Potter et al., 2007; Hauser et al., 2008; Holst and Smultea, 2008; Weir, 2008; Barkaszi et al., 2009; Richardson et al., 2009; Moulton and Holst, 2010).

Seismic operators and marine mammal observers on seismic vessels regularly see dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, but in general there is a tendency for most delphinids to show some avoidance of operating seismic vessels (e.g., Goold, 1996a, b, c; Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003; Moulton and Miller, 2005; Holst et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008; Richardson et al., 2009; Barkaszi et al., 2009; Moulton and Holst, 2010). 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 arrays of airguns are firing (e.g., Moulton and Miller, 2005). Nonetheless, small toothed whales more often 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., Stone and Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008; Barry et al., 2010; Moulton and Holst, 2010). In most cases, the avoidance radii for delphinids appear to be small, on the order of one km or less, and some individuals show no apparent avoidance. The beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ) is a species that (at least at times) shows long-distance avoidance of seismic vessels. Aerial surveys conducted in the southeastern Beaufort Sea during summer found that sighting rates of beluga whales were significantly lower at distances 10 to 20 km compared with 20 to 30 km from an operating airgun array, and observers on seismic boats in that area rarely see belugas (Miller et al., 2005; Harris et al., 2007).

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). However, the animals tolerated high received levels of sound before exhibiting aversive behaviors.

Results for porpoises depend on species. The limited available data suggest that harbor porpoises show stronger avoidance of seismic operations than do Dall's porpoises (Stone, 2003; MacLean and Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006). Dall's porpoises seem relatively tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean and Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006), although they too have been observed to avoid large arrays of operating airguns (Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Bain and Williams, 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 (Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007).

Most studies of sperm whales exposed to airgun sounds indicate that the sperm whale shows considerable tolerance of airgun pulses (e.g., Stone, 2003; Moulton et al., 2005, 2006a; Stone and Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008). In most cases the whales do not show strong avoidance, and they continue to call (see Appendix A of NSF's EA for review). However, controlled exposure experiments in the GOM indicate that foraging behavior was altered upon exposure to airgun sound (Jochens et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2009; Tyack, 2009).

There are almost no specific data on the behavioral reactions of beaked whales to seismic surveys. However, some northern bottlenose whales ( Hyperoodon ampullatus ) remained in the general area and continued to produce high-frequency clicks when exposed to sound pulses from distant seismic surveys (Gosselin and Lawson, 2004; Laurinolli and Cochrane, 2005; Simard et al., 2005). Most beaked whales tend to avoid approaching vessels of other types (e.g., Wursig et al., 1998). They may also dive for an extended period when approached by a vessel (e.g., Kasuya, 1986), although it is uncertain how much longer such dives may be as compared to dives by undisturbed beaked whales, which also are often quite long (Baird et al., 2006; Tyack et al., 2006). Based on a single observation, Aguilar-Soto et al. (2006) suggested that foraging efficiency of Cuvier's beaked whales may be reduced by close approach of vessels. In any event, it is likely that most beaked whales would also show strong avoidance of an approaching seismic vessel, although this has not been documented explicitly. In fact, Moulton and Holst (2010) reported 15 sightings of beaked whales during seismic studies in the Northwest Atlantic; seven of those sightings were made at times when at least one airgun was operating. There was little evidence to indicate that beaked whale behavior was affected by airgun operations; sighting rates and distances were similar during seismic and non-seismic periods (Moulton and Holst, 2010).

There are increasing indications that some beaked whales tend to strand when naval exercises involving mid-frequency sonar operation are ongoing nearby (e.g., Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado, 1991; Frantzis, 1998; NOAA and USN, 2001; Jepson et al., 2003; Hildebrand, 2005; Barlow and Gisiner, 2006; see also the Stranding and Mortality section in this document). These strandings are apparently a disturbance response, although auditory or other injuries or other physiological effects may also be involved. Whether beaked whales would ever react similarly to seismic surveys is unknown. Seismic survey sounds are quite different from those of the sonar in operation during the above-cited incidents.

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 A of NSF's EA).

Pinnipeds —Pinnipeds are not likely to show a strong avoidance reaction to the airgun array. Visual monitoring from seismic vessels has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds, and only slight (if any) changes in behavior, see Appendix A(5) of NSF's EA. In the Beaufort Sea, some ringed seals avoided an area of 100 m to (at most) a few hundred meters around seismic vessels, but many seals remained within 100 to 200 m (328 to 656 ft) of the trackline as the operating airgun array passed by (e.g., Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and Lawson, 2002; Miller et al., 2005). Ringed seal sightings averaged somewhat farther away from the seismic vessel when the airguns were operating than when they were not, but the difference was small (Moulton and Lawson, 2002). Similarly, in Puget Sound, sighting distances for harbor seals and California sea lions tended to be larger when airguns were operating (Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998). Previous telemetry work suggests that avoidance and other behavioral reactions may be stronger than evident to date from visual studies (Thompson et al., 1998).

Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift—an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran, Carder, Schlundt, and Ridgway, 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of threshold shift just after exposure is called the initial threshold shift. If the threshold shift eventually returns to zero ( i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is called temporary threshold shift (TTS) (Southall et al., 2007).

Researchers have studied TTS in certain captive odontocetes and pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds (reviewed in Southall et al., 2007). However, there has been no specific documentation of TTS let alone permanent hearing damage, i.e., permanent threshold shift (PTS), in free-ranging marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses during realistic field conditions.

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). Table 1 (above) presents the distances from the Melville' s airguns at which the received energy level (per pulse, flat-weighted) would be expected to be greater than or equal to 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms).

Researchers have derived TTS information for odontocetes from studies on the bottlenose dolphin and beluga. For the one harbor porpoise tested, the received level of airgun sound that elicited onset of TTS was lower (Lucke et al., 2009). If these results from a single animal are representative, it is inappropriate to assume that onset of TTS occurs at similar received levels in all odontocetes ( cf. Southall et al., 2007). Some cetaceans apparently can incur TTS at considerably lower sound exposures than are necessary to elicit TTS in the beluga or bottlenose dolphin.

For baleen whales, there are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to induce TTS. The frequencies to which baleen whales are most sensitive are assumed to be lower than those to which odontocetes are most sensitive, 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 (Southall et al., 2007). For this proposed study, SIO expects no cases of TTS given the low abundance of baleen whales in the proposed survey area at the time of the proposed survey, and the strong likelihood that baleen whales would avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels high enough for TTS to occur.

In pinnipeds, TTS thresholds associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of underwater sound have not been measured. Initial evidence from more prolonged (non-pulse) exposures suggested that some pinnipeds (harbor seals in particular) incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Ketten et al., 2001). 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 a received level of approximately 181 to 186 dB 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).

To avoid the potential for injury, NMFS (1995, 2000) concluded that cetaceans should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). NMFS believes that to avoid the potential for permanent physiological damage (Level A harassment), cetaceans should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The 180 dB and 190 dB levels are the shutdown criterion applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, as specified by NMFS (2000); these levels were used to establish the EZs. NMFS also assumes that marine mammals exposed to levels exceeding 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) may experience Level B harassment.

Permanent Threshold Shift —When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases, there can be total or partial deafness, whereas in other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985). 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 at least mild TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995, p. 372 ff; Gedamke et al., 2008). Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single exposures to a level well above that causing TTS onset might elicit PTS.

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 dBs above that inducing mild TTS if the animal were exposed to strong sound pulses with rapid rise time—see Appendix A(6) of SIO's EA. 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, and probably greater than six dB (Southall et al., 2007).

Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS would occur. Baleen whales generally avoid the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other marine mammals.

Stranding and Mortality —Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosives can be killed or severely injured, and the auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten et al., 1993; Ketten, 1995). However, explosives are no longer used for marine waters for commercial seismic surveys or (with rare exceptions) for seismic research; they have been replaced entirely by airguns or related non-explosive pulse generators. Airgun pulses are less energetic and have slower rise times, and there is no specific evidence that they can cause serious injury, death, or stranding even in the case of large airgun arrays. However, the association of strandings of beaked whales with naval exercises involving mid-frequency active sonar and, in one case, an L-DEO seismic survey (Malakoff, 2002; Cox et al., 2006), 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 (e.g., Hildebrand, 2005; Southall et al., 2007). Appendix A(6) of SIO's EA provides additional details.

Specific sound-related processes that lead to strandings and mortality are not well documented, but may include:

(1) Swimming in avoidance of a sound into shallow water;

(2) A change in behavior (such as a change in diving behavior) that might contribute to tissue damage, gas bubble formation, hypoxia, cardiac arrhythmia, hypertensive hemorrhage or other forms of trauma;

(3) A physiological change such as a vestibular response leading to a behavioral change or stress-induced hemorrhagic diathesis, leading in turn to tissue damage; and

(4) Tissue damage directly from sound exposure, such as through acoustically-mediated bubble formation and growth or acoustic resonance of tissues. Some of these mechanisms are unlikely to apply in the case of impulse sounds. However, there are indications that gas-bubble disease (analogous to “the bends”), induced in supersaturated tissue by a behavioral response to acoustic exposure, could be a pathologic mechanism for the strandings and mortality of some deep-diving cetaceans exposed to sonar. However, the evidence for this remains circumstantial and associated with exposure to naval mid-frequency sonar, not seismic surveys (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007).

Seismic pulses and mid-frequency sonar signals are quite different, and some mechanisms by which sonar sounds have been hypothesized to affect beaked whales are unlikely to apply to airgun pulses. Sounds produced by airgun arrays are broadband impulses with most of the energy below one kHz. Typical military mid-frequency sonar emits non-impulse sounds at frequencies of two to 10 kHz, generally with a relatively narrow bandwidth at any one time. A further difference between seismic surveys and naval exercises is that naval exercises can involve sound sources on more than one vessel. 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 signals can, in special circumstances, lead (at least indirectly) to physical damage and mortality (e.g., Balcomb and Claridge, 2001; NOAA and USN, 2001; Jepson et al., 2003; Fernández et al., 2004, 2005; Hildebrand 2005; Cox et al., 2006) 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 or deaths at sea as a result of exposure to seismic surveys, but a few cases of strandings in the general area where a seismic survey was ongoing have led to speculation concerning a possible link between seismic surveys and strandings. Suggestions that there was a link between seismic surveys and strandings of humpback whales in Brazil (Engel et al., 2004) were not well founded (IAGC, 2004; IWC, 2007). In September, 2002, there was a stranding of two Cuvier's beaked whales ( Ziphius cavirostris ) in the Gulf of California, Mexico, when the L-DEO vessel R/V Maurice Ewing was operating a 20 airgun (8,490 in 3 ) array in the general area. The link between the stranding and the seismic surveys was inconclusive and not based on any physical evidence (Hogarth, 2002; Yoder, 2002). Nonetheless, the Gulf of California incident plus the beaked whale strandings near naval exercises involving use of mid-frequency sonar suggests a need for caution in conducting seismic surveys in areas occupied by beaked whales until more is known about effects of seismic surveys on those species (Hildebrand, 2005). 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, and

(2) Differences between the sound sources operated by SIO and those involved in the naval exercises associated with strandings.

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, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007). Studies examining such effects are limited. However, resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and direct noise-induced bubble formations (Crum et al., 2005) are implausible in the case of exposure to an impulsive broadband source like an airgun array. If seismic surveys disrupt diving patterns of deep-diving species, this might perhaps result in bubble formation and a form of the bends, as speculated to occur in beaked whales exposed to sonar. However, there is no specific evidence of this upon exposure to airgun pulses.

In general, very little is known about the potential for seismic survey sounds (or other types of strong underwater sounds) to cause non-auditory physical effects in marine mammals. Such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short distances and to activities that extend over a prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be expected (Southall et al., 2007), or any 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 and some odontocetes, are especially unlikely to incur non-auditory physical effects.

SIO will operate the Kongsberg EM 122 MBES from the source vessel during the planned study. Sounds from the MBES are very short pulses, occurring for two to 15 ms once every five to 20 s, depending on water depth. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by this MBES is at frequencies near 12 kHz, and the maximum source level is 242 dB re 1 μPam (rms). The beam is narrow (1 to 2°) in fore-aft extent and wide (150°) in the cross-track extent. Each ping consists of eight (in water greater than 1,000 m deep) or four (in water less than 1,000 m deep) 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 segments. Also, marine mammals that encounter the Kongsberg EM 122 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 two to 15 ms pulse (or two pings 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 to receive the multiple pulses that might result in sufficient exposure to cause TTS.

Navy sonars that have been linked to avoidance reactions and stranding of cetaceans: (1) generally have longer pulse duration than the Kongsberg EM 122; and (2) are often directed close to horizontally versus more downward for the MBES. The area of possible influence of the MBES is much smaller—a narrow band below the source vessel. Also, the duration of exposure for a given marine mammal can be much longer for naval sonar. During SIO'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. Possible effects of an MBES on marine mammals are outlined below.

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

Behavioral Responses —Behavioral reactions of free-ranging marine mammals to sonars, echosounders, 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 to 25 kHz “whale-finding” sonar with a source level of 215 dB re 1 μPa, gray whales reacted by orienting slightly away from the source and being deflected from their course by approximately 200 m (Frankel, 2005). When a 38 kHz echosounder and a 150 kHz acoustic Doppler current profiler were transmitting during studies in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, baleen whales showed no significant responses, while spotted and spinner dolphins were detected slightly more often and beaked whales less often during visual surveys (Gerrodette and Pettis, 2005).

Captive bottlenose dolphins and a beluga whale exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to 1 s tonal signals at frequencies similar to those that will be emitted by the MBES used by SIO, 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 duration as compared with those from an MBES.

Very few data are available on the reactions of pinnipeds to echosounder sounds at frequencies similar to those used during seismic operations. Hastie and Janik (2007) conducted a series of behavioral response tests on two captive gray seals to determine their reactions to underwater operation of a 375 kHz multibeam imaging echosounder that included significant signal components down to 6 kHz. Results indicated that the two seals reacted to the signal by significantly increasing their dive durations. Because of 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 consequences to the animals.

Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects —Given recent stranding events that have been associated with the operation of naval sonar, there is concern that mid-frequency sonar sounds can cause serious impacts to marine mammals (see above). However, the MBES proposed for use by SIO is quite different than sonar used for Navy operations. Pulse duration of the MBES is very short relative to the naval sonar. Also, at any given location, an individual marine mammal would be in the beam of the MBES for much less time given the generally downward orientation of the beam and its narrow fore-aft beamwidth; Navy sonar often uses near-horizontally-directed sound. Those factors would all reduce the sound energy received from the MBES rather drastically relative to that from naval sonar.

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

SIO will also operate a SBP from the source vessel during the proposed survey. Sounds from the SBP are very short pulses, occurring for up to 64 ms once every s. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by the SBP is at 3.5 kHz, and the beam is directed downward. The SBP on the Melville has a maximum source level of 222 dB re 1 μPam (rms). 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—even for an SBP more powerful than that on the Melville —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.

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

Behavioral Responses —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. However, the pulsed signals from the SBP are considerably weaker than those from the MBES. Therefore, behavioral responses are not expected unless marine mammals are very close to the source.

Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects —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, including airguns. 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.

The acoustic release transponder used to communicate with the OBSs uses frequencies nine to 13 kHz. These signals will be used very intermittently. It is unlikely that the acoustic release signals would have a significant effect on marine mammals through masking, disturbance, or hearing impairment. Any effects likely would be negligible given the brief exposure at presumable low levels.

The potential effects to marine mammals described in this section of the document do not take into consideration the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures described later in this document (see the Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting sections) which, as noted are designed to effect the least practicable adverse impact on affected marine mammal species and stocks.

The proposed seismic survey will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed survey area, including the food sources they use ( i.e. fish and invertebrates), and there will be no physical damage to any habitat. While it is anticipated that the specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification, this impact to habitat is temporary and reversible and was considered in further detail earlier in this document, as behavioral modification. The main impact associated with the proposed activity will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, previously discussed in this notice.

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

The specific received sound levels at which permanent adverse effects to fish potentially could 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. The studies of individual fish have often been on caged fish that were exposed to airgun pulses in situations not representative of an actual seismic survey. 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.

Hastings and Popper (2005), Popper (2009), and Popper and Hastings (2009a,b) provided recent critical reviews of the known effects of sound on fish. The following sections provide a general synopsis of the available information on the effects of exposure to seismic and other anthropogenic sound as relevant to fish. The information comprises results from scientific studies of varying degrees of rigor plus 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 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 D of NSF's EA). For a given sound to result in hearing loss, the sound must exceed, by some substantial 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 are unknown; however, they likely depend 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 SIO and NMFS know, there are only two papers with proper experimental methods, controls, and careful pathological investigation implicating sounds produced by actual seismic survey airguns in causing 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 fish species from the Mackenzie River Delta. This study found that broad whitefish ( Coregonus nasus ) exposed to five airgun shots were not significantly different from those of controls. 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 airguns [less than 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 nine m in the former case and less than two m in the latter). Water depth sets a lower limit on the lowest sound frequency that will propagate (the “cutoff frequency”) at about one-quarter wavelength (Urick, 1983; Rogers and Cox, 1988).

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 the 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 fish would be expected to be within a few meters of the seismic source. Numerous other studies provide examples of no fish mortality upon exposure to seismic sources (Falk and Lawrence, 1973; Holliday et al., 1987; La Bella et al., 1996; Santulli et al., 1999; McCauley et al., 2000a,b, 2003; Bjarti, 2002; Thomsen, 2002; Hassel et al., 2003; Popper et al., 2005; Boeger et al., 2006).

Some studies have reported, some equivocally, that mortality of fish, fish eggs, or larvae can occur close to seismic sources (Kostyuchenko, 1973; Dalen and Knutsen, 1986; Booman et al., 1996; Dalen et al., 1996). Some of the reports claimed seismic effects from treatments quite different from actual seismic survey sounds or even reasonable surrogates. However, Payne et al. (2009) reported no statistical differences in mortality/morbidity between control and exposed groups of capelin eggs or monkfish larvae. Saetre and Ona (1996) applied a `worst-case scenario' mathematical model to investigate the effects of seismic energy on fish eggs and larvae. They concluded that mortality rates caused by exposure to seismic surveys are so low, as compared to natural mortality rates, that the impact of seismic surveying on recruitment to a fish stock must be regarded as insignificant.

Physiological Effects —Physiological effects refer to cellular and/or biochemical responses of fish to acoustic stress. Such stress potentially could affect fish populations by increasing mortality or reducing reproductive success. Primary and secondary stress responses of fish after exposure to seismic survey sound appear to be temporary in all studies done to date (Sverdrup et al., 1994; Santulli et al., 1999; McCauley et al., 2000a,b). The periods necessary for the biochemical changes to return to normal are variable and depend on numerous aspects of the biology of the species and of the sound stimulus (see Appendix D of NSF's EA).

Behavioral Effects —Behavioral effects include changes in the distribution, migration, mating, and catchability of fish populations. Studies investigating the possible effects of sound (including seismic survey sound) on fish behavior have been conducted on both uncaged and caged individuals (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 founded 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 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.

The existing body of information on the impacts of seismic survey sound on marine invertebrates is very limited. However, there is some unpublished and very limited evidence of the potential for adverse effects on invertebrates, thereby justifying further discussion and analysis of this issue. The three types of potential effects of exposure to seismic surveys on marine invertebrates are pathological, physiological, and behavioral. Based on the physical structure of their sensory organs, marine invertebrates appear to be specialized to respond to particle displacement components of an impinging sound field and not to the pressure component (Popper et al., 2001; see also Appendix E of NSF's EA).

The only information available on the impacts of seismic surveys on marine invertebrates involves studies of individuals; there have been no studies at the population scale. Thus, available information provides limited insight on possible real-world effects at the regional or ocean scale. The most important aspect of potential impacts concerns how exposure to seismic survey sound ultimately affects invertebrate populations and their viability, including availability to fisheries.

Literature reviews of the effects of seismic and other underwater sound on invertebrates were provided by Moriyasu et al. (2004) and Payne et al. (2008). The following sections provide a synopsis of available information on the effects of exposure to seismic survey sound on species of decapod crustaceans and cephalopods, the two taxonomic groups of invertebrates on which most such studies have been conducted. The available information is from studies with variable degrees of scientific soundness and from anecdotal information. A more detailed review of the literature on the effects of seismic survey sound on invertebrates is provided in Appendix E of NSF's EA.

Pathological Effects —In water, lethal and sub-lethal injury to organisms exposed to seismic survey sound appears to depend on at least 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 the pressure to rise and decay decreases, and the chance of acute pathological effects increases. For the type of airgun array planned for the proposed program, the pathological (mortality) zone for crustaceans and cephalopods is expected to be within a few meters of the seismic source, at most; however, very few specific data are available on levels of seismic signals that might damage these animals. This premise is based on the peak pressure and rise/decay time characteristics of seismic airgun arrays currently in use around the world.

Some studies have suggested that seismic survey sound has a limited pathological impact on early developmental stages of crustaceans (Pearson et al., 1994; Christian et al., 2003; DFO, 2004). However, the impacts appear to be either temporary or insignificant compared to what occurs under natural conditions. Controlled field experiments on adult crustaceans (Christian et al., 2003, 2004; DFO, 2004) and adult cephalopods (McCauley et al., 2000a,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 the article provides little evidence to support this claim. Recent work by Andre et al. (2011) purports to present the first morphological and ultrastructural evidence of massive acoustic trauma ( i.e., permanent and substantial alterations of statocyst sensory hair cells) in four cephalopod species subjected to low-frequency sound. The cephalopods, primarily cuttlefish, were exposed to continuous 50 to 400 Hz sinusoidal wave sweeps (100% duty cycle and 1 s sweep period) for two hours while captive in relatively small tanks (one 2,000 liter [L, 2m 3 ] and one 200 L [0.2 m 3 ] tank), and reported morphological and ultrastructural evidence of massive acoustic trauma ( i.e., permanent and substantial alterations of statocyst sensory hair cells). The received SPL was reported as 157±5 dB re 1 µPa, with peak levels at 175 dB re 1 µPa. As in the McCauley et al. (2003) paper on sensory hair cell damage in pink snapper as a result of exposure to seismic sound, the cephalopods were subjected to higher sound levels than they would be under natural conditions, and they were unable to swim away from the sound source.

Physiological Effects —Physiological effects refer mainly to biochemical responses by marine invertebrates to acoustic stress. Such stress potentially could affect invertebrate populations by increasing mortality or reducing reproductive success. Primary and secondary stress responses ( i.e., changes in haemolymph levels of enzymes, proteins, etc.) of crustaceans have been noted several days or months after exposure to seismic survey sounds (Payne et al., 2007). 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.

Behavioral Effects —There is increasing interest in assessing the possible direct and indirect effects of seismic and other sounds on invertebrate behavior, particularly in relation to the consequences for fisheries. Changes in behavior could potentially affect such aspects as reproductive success, distribution, susceptibility to predation, and catchability by fisheries. Studies investigating the possible behavioral effects of exposure to seismic survey sound on crustaceans and cephalopods have been conducted on both uncaged and caged animals. In some cases, invertebrates exhibited startle responses (e.g., squid in McCauley et al., 2000a,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). Similarly, Parry and Gason (2006) did not find any evidence that lobster catch rates were affected by seismic surveys. 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).

OBS Deployment —A total of approximately 10 OBSs will be deployed during the proposed survey. L-DEO OBS08 model broadband OBSs will be used during the cruise. This type of OBS has a height of approximately 122 cm and a width and depth of 76.2 x 106.7 cm. The anchor is made of two steel cylinders approximately 15 cm in diameter and 46 cm in length. Each cylinder weighs approximately 75 lbs in air. OBSs will remain on the seafloor to continue to collect data for approximately one year. Once an OBS is ready to be retrieved, an acoustic release transponder interrogates the instrument at a frequency of 9 to 11 kHz, and a response is received at a frequency of 9 to 13 kHz. The burn-wire release assembly is then activated and the instrument is released from the anchor to float to the surface. OBS anchors will be left behind upon equipment recovery. Although OBS placement will disrupt a very small area of seafloor habitat and could disturb benthic invertebrates, the impacts are expected to be localized and transitory.

In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.

SIO has based the mitigation measures described herein, to be implemented for the proposed seismic survey, on the following:

(1) Protocols used during previous SIO seismic research cruises as approved by NMFS;

(2) Previous IHA applications and IHAs approved and authorized by NMFS; and

(3) Recommended best practices in Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. (1998), and Weir and Dolman, (2007).

Planning Phase —The PIs worked with SIO and NSF to identify potential time periods to carry out the survey taking into consideration key factors such as environmental conditions ( i.e., the seasonal presence of marine mammals), weather conditions, equipment, and optimal timing for other proposed seismic surveys using the Melville. Most marine mammal species are expected to occur in the area year-round, so altering the timing of the proposed survey likely would result in no net benefits for those species. Baleen whales are most common south of the survey area between February and June, whereas odontocetes were most commonly observed between October and November. After considering what energy source level was necessary to achieve the research goals, the PIs determined the use of the two GI airgun array with a maximum total volume of 210 in 3 would be required. Given the research goals, location of the survey and associated deep water, this energy source level was viewed appropriate. The location of the survey was informed and adjusted based on the latest scientific information on the epicenter of the February 27, 2010 earthquake; survey location is critical for collecting the data for the overall research activity and meeting research objectives.

To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, SIO and/or its designees has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:

(1) Proposed exclusion zones;

(2) Speed or course alteration;

(3) Shut-down procedures; and

(4) Ramp-up procedures.

Proposed Exclusion Zones —Received sound levels have been modeled by L-DEO for a number of airgun configurations, including two 45 in 3 GI airguns, in relation to distance and direction from the airguns (see Figure 2 of the IHA application). The model does not allow for bottom interactions, and is most directly applicable to deep water. Based on the modeling, estimates of the maximum distances from the source where sound levels are predicted to be 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms) in deep water were determined (see Table 1 above).

Empirical data concerning the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms) distances were acquired for various airgun arrays based on measurements during the acoustic verification studies conducted by L-DEO in the northern GOM in 2003 (Tolstoy et al., 2004) and 2007 to 2008 (Tolstoy et al., 2009). Results of the 36 airgun array are not relevant for the two GI airguns to be used in the proposed survey. The empirical data for the 6, 10, 12, and 20 airgun arrays indicate that, for deep water, the L-DEO model tends to overestimate the received sound levels at a given distance (Tolstoy et al., 2004). Measurements were not made for the two GI airgun array in deep water, however, SIO proposes to use the EZ predicted by L-DEO's model for the proposed GI airgun operations in deep water, although they are likely conservative give the empirical results for the other arrays.

The 180 and 190 dB radii are shut-down criteria applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, as specified by NMFS (2000); these levels were used to establish the EZs. If the PSO detects marine mammal(s) within or about to enter the appropriate EZ, the airguns will be shut-down immediately.

Speed or Course Alteration —If a marine mammal is detected outside the EZ an, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter the EZ, the vessel's speed and/or direct course could be changed. This would be done if operationally practicable while minimizing the effect on the planned science objectives. The activities and movements of the marine mammal (relative to the seismic vessel) will then be closely monitored to determine whether the animal is approaching the applicable EZ. If the animal appears likely to enter the EZ, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or a shut-down of the seismic source. Typically, during seismic operations, the source vessel is unable to change speed or course and one or more alternative mitigation measures will need to be implemented.

Shut-down Procedures —SIO will shut down the operating airgun(s) if a marine mammal is seen outside the EZ for the airgun(s), and if the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed to avoid having the animal enter the EZ, the seismic source will be shut-down before the animal is within the EZ. If a marine mammal is already within the EZ when first detected, the seismic source will be shut-down immediately.

Following a shut-down, SIO will not resume airgun activity until the marine mammal has cleared the EZ. SIO will consider the animal to have cleared the EZ if:

• A PSO has visually observed the animal leave the EZ, or

• A PSO has not sighted the animal within the EZ for 15 min for species with shorter dive durations ( i.e., small odontocetes or pinnipeds), or 30 min for species with longer dive durations ( i.e., mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, killer, and beaked whales).

Ramp-up Procedures —SIO will follow a ramp-up procedure when the airgun array begins operating after a specified period without airgun operations or when a shut-down has exceeded that period. SIO proposes that, for the present cruise, this period would be approximately 15 min. SIO has used similar periods (approximately 15 min) during previous SIO surveys.

Ramp-up will begin with a single GI airgun (45 in 3 ). The second GI airgun (45 in 3 ) will be added after five min. During ramp-up, the PSOs will monitor the EZ, and if marine mammals are sighted, SIO will implement a shut-down as though both GI airguns were operational.

If the complete EZ has not been visible for at least 30 min prior to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime, SIO will not commence the ramp-up. If one airgun has operated, ramp-up to full power will be permissible at night or in poor visibility, on the assumption that marine mammals will be alerted to the approaching seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and could move away if they choose. A ramp-up from a shut-down may occur at night, but only where the EZ is small enough to be visible. SIO will not initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if a marine mammal is sighted within or near the applicable EZs during the day or close to the vessel at night.

NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and has considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. NMFS's evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

(2) The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and

(3) The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

Based on NMFS's evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS or recommended by the public, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for IHAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area.

SIO proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the proposed project, in order to implement the proposed mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, and to satisfy the anticipated monitoring requirements of the IHA. SIO's proposed Monitoring Plan is described below this section. SIO understands that this monitoring plan will be subject to review by NMFS, and that refinements may be required. The monitoring work described here has been planned as a self-contained project independent of any other related monitoring projects that may be occurring simultaneously in the same regions. SIO is prepared to discuss coordination of its monitoring program with any related work that might be done by other groups insofar as this is practical and desirable.

PSOs will be based aboard the seismic source vessel and will watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun operations and during any ramp-ups at night. PSOs will also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel for at least 30 min prior to the ramp-up of airgun operations after an extended shut-down ( i.e., greater than approximately 15 min for this proposed cruise). When feasible, PSOs will conduct observations during daytime periods when the seismic system is not operating for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and without airgun operations and between acquisition periods. Based on PSO observations, the airguns will be shut-down when marine mammals are observed within or about to enter a designated EZ. The EZ is a region in which a possibility exists of adverse effects on animal hearing or other physical effects.

During seismic operations in the south-eastern Pacific Ocean, three PSOs will be based aboard the Melville. SIO will appoint the PSOs with NMFS's concurrence. At least one PSO will monitor the EZs during seismic operations. Observations will take place during ongoing daytime operations and nighttime ramp-ups of the airguns. PSO(s) will be on duty in shifts of duration no longer than 4 hr. The vessel crew will also be instructed to assist in detecting marine mammals.

The Melville is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations of protected species. The primary observer platform is located one deck below and forward of the bridge (02 level, 12.46 m [40.9 ft] above the waterline), affording relatively unobstructed 180° forward view. A pair of Big-eye binoculars is mounted in this location. The open deck continues along both the port and starboard sides, and opens up to an aft deck stretching across the full width of the vessel. PSOs have views in a full 360° by walking along this deck. In extremely inclement weather, the PSOs move on to the bridge (03 level, 15.5 m [50.6 ft] above the water line). There they will have a 360° view through the windows.

During daytime, the PSVOs will scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 × 50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25 × 150), optical range finders and with the naked eye. During darkness, night vision devices (NVDs) will be available, when required. The PSOs will be in wireless communication with the vessel's officers on the bridge and scientists in the vessel's operations laboratory, so they can advise promptly of the need for avoidance maneuvers or seismic source shut-down. When marine mammals are detected within or about to enter the designated EZ, the airguns will immediately be shut-down if necessary. The PSO(s) will continue to maintain watch to determine when the animal(s) are outside the EZ by visual confirmation. Airgun operations will not resume until the animal is confirmed to have left the EZ, or if not observed after 15 min for species with shorter dive durations (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min for species with longer dive durations (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, killer, and beaked whales).

PSOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate numbers of animals potentially `taken' by harassment (as defined in the MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a shut-down of the airguns when a marine mammal is within or near the EZ. Observations will also be made during daytime periods when the Melville is underway without seismic operations ( i.e., transits to, from, and through the study area) to collect baseline biological data.

When a sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded:

1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace.

2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, Beaufort sea state, visibility, and sun glare.

The data listed under (2) will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch, and during a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.

All observations as well as information regarding shut-downs of the seismic source, will be recorded in a standardized format. The data accuracy will be verified by the PSOs at sea, and preliminary reports will be prepared during the field program and summaries forwarded to the operating institution's shore facility and to NSF weekly or more frequently.

Vessel-based observations by the PSO will provide the following information:

1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun shut-down).

2. Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS.

3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted.

4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity.

5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity.

SIO will submit a report to NMFS and NSF within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities). The report will also include estimates of the number and nature of exposures that could result in potential “takes” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. After the report is considered final, it will be publicly available on the NMFS and NSF Web sites.

In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), SIO will immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to Michael.Payne@noaa.gov and Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, and the NMFS Southwest Regional Stranding Coordinators ( Joe.Cordaro@noaa.gov and Sarah.Wilkin@noaa.gov ). The report must include the following information:

• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

• Name and type of vessel involved;

• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;

• Description of the incident;

• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Water depth;

• Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

• Fate of the animal(s); and

• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with SIO to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SIO may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.

In the event that SIO discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent ( i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), SIO will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to Michael.Payne@noaa.gov and Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, and the NMFS Southwest Regional Office (562-980-4017) and/or by email to the Southwest Regional Stranding Coordinators ( Joe.Cordaro@noaa.gov and Sarah.Wilkin@noaa.gov ). The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with SIO to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

In the event that SIO discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), SIO will report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to Michael.Payne@noaa.gov and Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, and the NMFS Southwest Regional Office (562-980-4017), and/or by email to the Southwest Regional Stranding Coordinators ( Joe.Cordaro@noaa.gov and Sarah.Wilkin@noaa.gov ), within 24 hours of discovery. SIO will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

Only take by Level B harassment is anticipated and proposed to be authorized as a result of the proposed marine seismic survey in the south-eastern Pacific Ocean. Acoustic stimuli ( i.e., increased underwater sound) generated during the operation of the seismic airgun array may have the potential to cause marine mammals in the survey area to be exposed to sounds at or greater than 160 dB or cause temporary, short-term changes in behavior. There is no evidence that the planned activities could result in injury, serious injury, or mortality within the specified geographic area for which SIO seeks the IHA. The required mitigation and monitoring measures will minimize any potential risk for injury, serious injury, or mortality.

The following sections describe SIO's methods to estimate take by incidental harassment and present the applicant's estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that could be affected during the proposed seismic program. The estimates are based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that could be disturbed appreciably by operations with the two GI airgun array to be used during approximately 1,810 km (977.3 nmi) (includes primary and secondary lines and an additional 25 percent contingency) of survey lines in the south-eastern Pacific Ocean.

SIO assumes that, during simultaneous operations of the airgun array and the other sources, any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the MBES and SBP would already be affected by the airguns. However, whether or not the airguns are operating simultaneously with the other sources, marine mammals are expected to exhibit no more than short-term and inconsequential responses to the MBES and SBP given their characteristics (e.g., narrow, downward-directed beam) and other considerations described previously. Such reactions are not considered to constitute “taking” (NMFS, 2001). Therefore, SIO provides no additional allowance for animals that could be affected by sound sources other than airguns.

Extensive systematic ship-based surveys have been conducted by NMFS SWFSC for marine mammals in the ETP. SIO used densities from five sources:

(1) SWFSC has recently developed habitat modeling as a method to estimate cetacean densities on a finer spatial scale than traditional line-transect analyses by using a continuous function of habitat variables, e.g., sea surface temperature, depth, distance from shore, and prey density (Barlow et al., 2009). For the ETP, the models are based on data from 12 SWFSC ship-based cetacean and ecosystem assessment surveys conducted during July to December from 1986 to 2006. The models have been incorporated into a web-based Geographic Information System (GIS) developed by Duke University's Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) team in close collaboration with the SWFSC SERDP team Read et al., 2009). For 11 cetacean species in the model, SIO used the GIS to obtain mean densities near the proposed survey area, i.e., in a rectangle bounded by 4° to 12° South and 75° to 85° West, which was the south-eastern extent of the model;

(2) For species sighted in SWFSC surveys whose sample sizes were too small to model density, SIO used densities from the surveys conducted during summer and fall 1986 to 1996, as summarized by Ferguson and Barlow (2001). Densities were calculated from Ferguson and Barlow (2003) for 5° x 5° blocks that include the proposed survey areas and corridors: Blocks 139, 159, 160, 200, 201, 202, 212, 213, and 219. Those blocks included 27,275 km (14727.3 nmi) of survey effort in Beaufort sea states 0 to 5, and 2,564 km (1,384.5 nmi) of survey effort in Beaufort sea states 0 to 2. Densities were obtained for an additional five species that were sighted in one or more of those blocks;

(3) For dusky dolphins, SIO used the mean densities reported for Area A from aerial surveys in North and Central Patagonia (Shiavini et al., 1999), corrected for ƒ(0), but not g(0). Since the closest density estimates were taken south of the proposed survey area, where dusky dolphin abundance is higher, SIO used 10 percent of the reported density to account for the decreased abundance of dusky dolphins in the proposed survey area;

(4) For Chilean dolphins, SIO used the estimated density of Chilean dolphins in Patagonia from Heinrich (2006). The extralimital, offshore distribution of Chilean dolphins in the proposed survey area was corrected for by taking 1 percent of the densities reported by Heinrich (2006);

(5) For blue whales, SIO used the densities reported by Galletti-Vernazzani and Cabrera (2009) from aerial surveys in Patagonia in March 2007 and April in 2009 that took place south of the survey site (39° South to 44° South). The density estimates were corrected for ƒ(0) and g(0). Given the higher abundance of blue whales south of the survey site, SIO corrected the reported density for the proposed survey area by reducing the density by 50 percent.

For two species for which there are only unconfirmed sightings in the region, the sei and fin whale, arbitrary low densities (equal to the density of the species with the lowest calculated density) were assigned. The same arbitrary low density was assigned to southern right whale dolphins and Burmeister's porpoise, where no confirmed sightings were made within the survey region. In addition, there were no density estimates available for humpback whales, minke whales, and Peale's dolphins, but confirmed sightings have been made near the survey area. SIO arbitrarily assigned a density estimate of 0.8 animals/1,000 km 2 , which was similar to the densities reported for uncommon species in the area.

Oceanographic conditions, including occasional El Nino and La Nina events, influence the distribution and numbers of marine mammals present in the ETP and SEP, resulting in considerable year-to-year variation in the distribution and abundance of many marine mammal species (e.g., Escorza-Trevino, 2009). Thus, for some species the densities derived from recent surveys may not be representative of densities that will be encountered during the proposed seismic survey.

SIO used estimated densities (see Table 3 of the application) for each cetacean species likely to occur in the proposed study area, i.e., species for which SIO obtained or assigned densities. The densities had been corrected, by the authors, for both trackline detectability and availability bias. Trackline detection probability bias is associated with diminishing sightability with increasing lateral distance from the trackline, and is measured by ƒ(0). Availability bias refers to the fact that there is less-than-100% probability of sighting an animal that is present along the survey trackline ƒ(0), and it is measured by g(0). Corrections for ƒ(0) and g(0) were made where mentioned above. The densities are given in Table 3 of SIO's IHA application.

SIO's estimates of exposures to various sound levels assume that the proposed surveys will be fully completed; in fact, the ensonified areas calculated using the planned number of line-km have been increased by 25 percent to accommodate turns, 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-kilometers of seismic operations that can be undertaken. Furthermore, any marine mammal sightings within or near the designated EZs will result in the shut-down of seismic operations as a mitigation measure. Thus, the following estimates of the numbers of marine mammals potentially exposed to sound levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are precautionary and probably overestimate the actual numbers of marine mammals that might be involved. These estimates also assume that there will be no weather, equipment, or mitigation delays, which is highly unlikely.

SIO estimated the number of different individuals that may be exposed to airgun sounds with received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) on one or more occasions by considering the total marine area that would be within the 160 dB radius around the operating airgun array on at least one occasion, along with the expected density of marine mammals in the area. The proposed seismic lines are not in close proximity, which minimizes the number of times an individual marine mammal may be exposed during the proposed survey; the area including the overlap is only 1.2 times the area excluding overlap.

The numbers of different individuals potentially exposed to greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms) were calculated by multiplying the expected species density times the anticipated area to be ensonified during airgun operations. The area expected to be ensonified was determined by entering the planned survey lines into a MapInfo GIS, using the GIS to identify the relevant areas by “drawing” the applicable 160 dB buffer (see Table 1 of the IHA application) around each seismic line, and then calculating the total area within the buffers. Areas where overlap occurred (because of crossing lines) were included only once when estimating the number of individuals exposed.

Applying the approach described above, approximately 1,448.4 km 2 (422.3 nmi 2 ) would be within the 160 dB isopleth on one or more occasions during the proposed survey (including primary and secondary lines). The total ensonified area used to calculate estimated numbers exposed was approximately 1,810.5 km 2 [527.9 nmi 2 ] and includes the additional 25 percent increase in the calculated area for contingency. Because this approach does not allow for turnover in the marine mammal populations in the study area during the course of the survey, the actual number of individuals exposed could be underestimated, although the conservative ( i.e., probably overestimated) line-kilometer distances used to calculate the area may offset this. Also, the approach assumes that no cetaceans will move away from or toward the trackline as the Melville approaches in response to increasing sound levels prior to the time the levels reach 160 dB. Another way of interpreting the estimates that follow is that they represent the number of individuals that are expected (in the absence of a seismic program) to occur in the waters that will be exposed to greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms).

Table 3 (Table 3 of the IHA application) shows the estimates of the number of different individual marine mammals that potentially could be exposed to greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the seismic survey if no animals moved away from the survey vessel. The requested take authorization is given in Table 3 (below; the far right column of Table 3 of the IHA application). For ESA listed species, the requested take authorization has been increased to the mean group size in southern Chile where available (Viddi et al., 2010) or the ETP (Wade and Gerodette, 1993), where the calculated number of individuals exposed was between 0.05 and the mean group size ( i.e., for sei, fin, humpback, and sperm whales). For species not listed under the ESA that could occur in the study area, the requested take authorization has been increased to the mean group size in the ETP (Wade and Gerodette, 1993) or southern Chile (Viddi et al., 2010); Zamorano-Abramson et al., 2010) in cases where the calculated number of individuals exposed was between one and the mean group size. For delphinids where typically large group sizes are encountered, the requested take authorization was increased to the mean group size in southern Chile (Aguauo et al., 1998; Viddi et al., 2010; Zamarano-Abramson et al., 2010) if the calculated number was greater than one, but less than the mean group size.

The best estimate of the number of individual cetaceans that could be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the proposed survey is 561 (see Table 3 of the IHA application). That total includes: 1 humpback, 1 minke, 2 Bryde's, 4 blue, and 7 sperm whales, 1 Cuvier's, 1 Blainville's, and 1 unidentified Mesoplodon beaked whale, 15 rough-toothed, 72 bottlenose, 134 spinner, 123 striped, 254 short-beaked common, 4 Peale's, 67 dusky, and 4 Chilean dolphins, and 1 false killer, 2 killer, and 22 long-finned pilot whales, which would represent less than 1% of the regional populations for any of the respective species. Most (96.4%) of the cetaceans potentially exposed are delphinids; rough-toothed, short-beaked common, striped, spinner, bottlenose, Risso's, and dusky dolphins and long-finned pilot whales are estimated to be the most common species in the proposed study area. Due to the extralimital distribution of pinnipeds in the study area, no pinnipeds are expected to be encountered during the proposed survey.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is conducting a voluntary pilot program to incentivize the distribution of patented technologies or products to address humanitarian needs. This pilot program is open to any patent owners or patent licensees, including inventors who have not assigned their ownership rights to others, assignees, and exclusive or non-exclusive licensees. The USPTO plans to collect information from applicants that describe what actions they have taken with their patented technology to address humanitarian needs among an impoverished population, or how they have furthered research by others on technologies for humanitarian purposes. Applications will be considered in four categories: Medical Technology, Food and Nutrition, Clean Technology, and Information Technology. It is expected that inventions from any field of technology will be eligible for the program, as long as they are applied to one of the four categories.

This pilot program is a follow-up to the responses received from the agency's “Request for Comments on Incentivizing Humanitarian Technologies and Licensing Through the Intellectual Property System” published September 20, 2010. On February 8, 2012, the USPTO published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the pilot program and outlining the procedures for participation in it. The USPTO plans to review the results from this pilot program to determine whether it should be extended.

In order to participate in this program, applicants must submit an application describing how their actions satisfy the competition criteria to address humanitarian issues. These applications may be up to five pages long and can be supplemented with additional supporting materials. The USPTO has developed two application forms that applicants can use to apply for participation in the Patents for Humanity Pilot Program—one application covers the humanitarian uses of technologies or products and the other application covers humanitarian research. There is also a form where applicants provide their contact information which the USPTO uses to notify applicants that they have been selected for an award. The applications must be submitted electronically through the http://patentsforhumanity.challenge.gov Web site. Submitted applications will be available on the public Web site after being screened for inappropriate material.

The applications will be reviewed by independent judges. A selection committee composed of representatives from other federal agencies and laboratories will make recommendations for the awards based on the judges'reviews. Those applicants who are selected for an award will receive a certificate redeemable to accelerate select matters before the USPTO and public recognition for their efforts, including an awards ceremony at the USPTO. The certificates can be redeemed to accelerate one of the following matters: An ex parte reexamination proceeding, including one appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) from that proceeding; a patent application, including one appeal to the BPAI from that application; or an appeal to the BPAI of a claim twice rejected in a patent application or reissue application or finally rejected in an ex parte reexamination, without accelerating the underlying matter which generated the appeal. The certificates cannot be transferred to other parties.

The USPTO obtained an emergency clearance from OMB for this collection, which was approved on January 25, 2012. This approval expires on July 31, 2012l.

Electronically through the http://patentsforhumanity.challenge.gov Web site.

OMB Number: 0651-0066.

Form Number(s): N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of an existing collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits, non-profit institutions, and individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,010 responses per year, with an estimated 33% (333) submitted by small entities.

Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately four hours to complete the humanitarian program application and one hour to complete the petition to extend the redemption period, depending on the nature of the information. These estimated times include gathering the necessary information, preparing the application and any supplemental supporting materials, and submitting the completed request to the USPTO.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 4,010 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $709,400. The USPTO estimates that both attorneys and paralegals will complete the information in this collection. Using the professional hourly rate of $340 for attorneys in private firms and a paraprofessional hourly rate of $122 for the paralegals, the USPTO estimates $709,400 per year for the respondent cost burden for this collection.

Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden: $0. This collection has no annual (non-hour) postage, operation or maintenance, or fee costs.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Purpose of Meeting: The Panel will review and comment on recommendations made to the Director of TRICARE Management Activity, by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, regarding the Uniform Formulary.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and will be provided only to the first 220 people signing-in. All persons must sign-in legibly.

Administrative Work Meeting: Prior to the public meeting, the Panel will conduct an Administrative Work Meeting from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. to discuss administrative matters of the Panel. The Administrative Work Meeting will be held at the Naval Heritage Center, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.160, the Administrative Work Meeting will be closed to the public.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Panel at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Panel's DFO. The DFO's contact information can be obtained from the General Services Administration's Federal Advisory Committee Act Database at https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.

Written statements that do not pertain to the scheduled meeting of the Panel may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than 5 business days prior to the meeting in question. The DFO will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all the committee members.

Public Comments: In addition to written statements, the Panel will set aside 1 hour for individuals or interested groups to address the Panel. To ensure consideration of their comments, individuals and interested groups should submit written statements as outlined in this notice; but if they still want to address the Panel, then they will be afforded the opportunity to register to address the Panel. The Panel's DFO will have a “Sign-Up Roster” available at the Panel meeting for registration on a first-come, first-serve basis. Those wishing to address the Panel will be given no more than 5 minutes to present their comments, and at the end of the 1 hour time period, no further public comments will be accepted. Anyone who signs-up to address the Panel, but is unable to do so due to the time limitation, may submit their comments in writing; however, they must understand that their written comments may not be reviewed prior to the Panel's deliberation.

To ensure timeliness of comments for the official record, the Panel encourages that individuals and interested groups consider submitting written statements instead of addressing the Panel.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. 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.

Title of Collection: Application for the U.S. Presidential Scholars Program.

OMB Control Number: 1860-0504.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,600.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 41,600.

Abstract: The United States Presidential Scholars Program is a national recognition program to honor outstanding graduating high school seniors. Candidates are invited to apply based on academic achievements on the SAT or ACT assessments, or on artistic merits based on participation in a national talent search. This program was established by Presidential Executive Orders 11155 and 12158.

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 04813. 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 and OMB Control Number when making your request.

Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

EPA ICR Number 0155.10; Certification of Pesticide Applicators (Renewal); 40 CFR parts 152 and 171; was approved on 02/03/2012; OMB Number 2070-0029; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved with change.

EPA ICR Number 1856.08; NESHAP for Primary Lead Processing; 40 CFR part 63 subparts A and TTT; was approved on 02/03/2012; OMB Number 2060-0414; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2372.03; Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Injection and Geological Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide, Subparts RR and UU (Technical Correction); 40 CFR part 98, subparts RR and UU; was approved on 02/06/2012; OMB Number 2060-0649; expires on 12/31/2013; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1712.08; NESHAP for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities—Surface Coating; 40 CFR part 63 subparts A and II; was approved on 02/06/2012; OMB Number 2060-0330; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2130.04; Transportation Conformity Determinations for Federally Funded and Approved Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects (Renewal); 40 CFR part 93 subpart A; was approved on 02/08/2012; OMB Number 2060-0561; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1069.10; NSPS for Primary and Secondary Emissions from Basic Oxygen Furnaces; 40 CFR part 60 subparts A, N and Na; was approved on 02/13/2012; OMB Number 2060-0029; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2263.03; NSPS for Petroleum Refineries; 40 CFR part 60 subparts A and Ja; was approved on 02/13/2012; OMB Number 2060-0602; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1054.11; NSPS for Petroleum Refineries; 40 CFR part 60 subparts A and J; was approved on 02/13/2012; OMB Number 2060-0022; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1750.06; National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings (Renewal); 40 CFR part 59 subpart D; was approved on 02/13/2012; OMB Number 2060-0393; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2394.02; Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards (Final Rule); 40 CFR parts 86, 523, 534, 535, 1036 and 1037; was approved on 02/17/2012; OMB Number 2060-0678; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved with change.

EPA ICR Number 2458.01; Fuel Use Requirements for Great Lakes Steamships (Direct Final); 40 CFR 1043.95; was approved on 02/21/2012; OMB Number 2060-0679; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved with change.

EPA ICR Number 2402.03; Willingness to Pay Survey for Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Cooling Water Intake Structures; was approved on 02/21/2012; OMB Number 2040-0283; expires on 07/31/2013; Approved with change.

EPA ICR Number 1230.31; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review (Burden Transfer from 2060-0609); 40 CFR 49.151-49.175, 51.160-51.166, 52.21—52.24, 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S; was approved on 02/28/2012; OMB Number 2060-0003; expires on 04/30/2012; Approved with change.

EPA ICR Number 2237.03; NESHAP for Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities; 40 CFR part 63 subpart A, BBBBBB and CCCCCC; was approved on 02/29/2012; OMB Number 2060-0620; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 0746.08; NSPS for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries; 40 CFR part 60 subparts A and UUU; was approved on 02/29/2012; OMB Number 2060-0251; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2267.03; NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries; 40 CFR part 63 subparts A and ZZZZZ; was approved on 02/29/2012; OMB Number 2060-0605; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 0660.11; NSPS for Metal Coil Surface Coating; 40 CFR part 60 subparts A and TT; was approved on 02/29/2012; OMB Number 2060-0107; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1557.08; NSPS for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; 40 CFR part 60 subparts A and WWW; was approved on 02/29/2012; OMB Number 2060-0220; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1131.10; NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants; 40 CFR part 60 subparts A and CC; was approved on 02/29/2012; OMB Number 2060-0054; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1597.10; Requirements and Exemptions for Specific RCRA Wastes (Renewal); 40 CFR 260.23, 40 CFR part 266 subpart N, 40 CFR 273.8, 273.14, 273.15, 273.18, 273.32, 273.34, 273.35, 273.38, 273.39, 273.61, 273.62, 279.10, 279.11, 279.42-279.44, 279.52-279.55, 279.57, 279.63, and 279.82; was approved on 02/29/2012; OMB Number 2050-0145; expires on 02/28/2015; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 0186.12; NESHAP for Vinyl Chloride; 40 CFR part 61 subparts A and F; was approved on 06/29/2011; OMB Number 2060-0071; expires on 06/30/2014; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 0661.10; NSPS for Asphalt Processing and Roofing Manufacturing (Renewal); 40 CFR part 60 subparts A and UU; was approved on 06/29/2011; OMB Number 2060-0002; expires on 06/30/2014; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 1125.06; NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel Firing (Renewal); 40 CFR part 61 subparts A and D; was approved on 06/29/2011; OMB Number 2060-0394; expires on 06/30/2014; Approved without change.

EPA ICR Number 2447.01; NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Production; in 40 CFR part 63 subpart LL; OMB filed comment on 02/03/2012.

EPA ICR Number 2028.07; NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; in 40 CFR part 63 subparts A and DDDDD; OMB filed comment on 02/06/2012.

EPA ICR Number 2427.01; Aircraft Engines—Supplemental Information Related to Exhaust Emissions (Proposed rule); in 40 CFR 87.42 and 87.46; OMB filed comment on 02/21/2012.

EPA ICR Number 0938.19; General Administrative Requirements for Assistance Programs (Change to Add RPPR); Withdrawn from OMB on 02/09/2012.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0239, which is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket 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 Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to either submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket 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 at http://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: NSPS for Grain Elevators (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1130.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0082.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2012. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Grain Elevators were proposed on January 18, 1977 (40 CFR part 60, subpart DD), promulgated on August 3, 1978, and amended on October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61759). These standards apply to each affected facility at any grain terminal elevator or any grain storage elevator. The facilities are each truck unloading station, truck loading station, barge and ship loading station, railcar loading station, railcar unloading station, grain dryer and all grain handling operations that commenced construction, modification or reconstruction after August 3, 1978.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities must make a one-time-only report of the date of construction or reconstruction, notification of the actual date of startup, notification of any physical or operational change to existing facility that may increase the rate of emission of the regulated pollutant, notification of initial performance test; and results of initial performance test. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Performance tests are the Agency's records of a source's initial capability to comply with emissions standards and not the operating conditions under which compliance was to achieve. An annual summary report is also required.

All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private.

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 Number for the EPA regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information estimated to average 10 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose and 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. All existing ways will have to adjust to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements that have subsequently changed; 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: Owners and operators of grain elevators.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 200.

Frequency of Response: Occasionally, initially and annually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,070.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $198,346, which includes $198,346 in labor costs, no capital/startup costs and no operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden. However, there is an increase in the total labor and Agency costs as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes. The change in cost estimates reflects updated labors rates available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 5, 2011 (76 FR 39092), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the comment period. Any comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0443, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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 Water Docket is 202-566-2426.

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 docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket 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 at 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: Public Water System Supervision Program (Renewal)

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0270.45, OMB Control No. 2040-0090

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2012. 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 Code of Federal Regulations, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either 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: The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program Renewal ICR examines public water system, primacy agency, EPA, and tribal operator certification provider burden and costs for “cross-cutting” recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., the burden and costs for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with contaminant-specific rulemakings). These activities which have record keeping and reporting requirements that are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 include the following: Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs), Primacy Regulation Activities, Variance and Exemption Rule (V/E Rule), General State Primacy Activities, Public Notification (PN) and Proficiency Testing (PT) Studies for Drinking Water Laboratories. The information collection activities for both the Operator Certification/Expense Reimbursement Grant Program and the Capacity Development Program are driven by the grant withholding and reporting provisions under § 1419 and § 1420, respectively, of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Although the Tribal Operator Certification Program is voluntary, the information collection is driven by grant eligibility requirements outlined in the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set-Aside Program Final Guidelines and the Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Guidelines.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.06 hours per response. 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 which have subsequently changed; 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: Owners/operators of public water systems who must report to the primacy agency. Primacy agencies, which include States, Tribes (if they have been authorized to act as primacy agencies), and EPA Regions that act as primacy agencies in Indian country and States that do not have primacy. Laboratories conducting PT to achieve state certification, which permits them to analyze samples for compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). (PT vendors are not considered respondents because they are paid for their incurred burden and costs via the prices that laboratories pay for the PT standards.)

Estimated Number of Respondents: 154,938.

Frequency of Response: Varies by requirement (i.e., on occasion, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, annually, biennially, and every 3, 6, and 9 years).

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 4,113,408.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $187,647,000, which includes $40,019,000 in capital and operating & maintenance (O&M) costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 199,864 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due primarily to consultations with respondents which yielded more accurate estimates of the burden for various activities. These were partially offset by burden decreases from a smaller respondent universe and reduced reporting due to a new enforcement tracking system and the discontinuation of a grant program.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0242, which is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket 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 Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to either submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket 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 at http://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: NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1055.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0021.

ICR Status: This ICR is schedule to expire on April 30, 2012. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, and any changes, or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are also required, at a minimum, semiannually.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private.

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 Number for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information estimated to average 37 hours per response. “Burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose and 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. All existing ways will have to adjust to comply with any previously-applicable instructions and requirements that have subsequently changed; 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: Owners and operators of kraft pulp mills.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 106.

Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 16,086.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $5,723,477, which is comprised of $1,541,377 in labor costs, $344,900 in capital/startup costs, and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of $3,837,200.

Changes in the Estimates: The increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to two adjustments: (1) There is an increase in the average number of respondents expected to become subject to the standards over the next three years; and (2) this ICR uses updates labor rates for each of the three labor categories.

The increase in O&M costs is due to an increase in the average number of respondents expected to become subject to the standards over the next three years.

There is also an increase in Agency costs, which is due to the use of the most updated labor rates.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0238, which is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket 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 Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket 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 at http://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: NESHAP for Natural Gas Transmission and Storage (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1789.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0418.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2012. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Natural Gas Transmission and Storage (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHH) were proposed on February 6, 1998, and promulgated on June 17, 1999. These regulations apply to existing facilities and new facilities that are major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and that either transport or store natural gas prior to entering the pipeline to a local distribution company or to a final end user (if there is no local distribution company).

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.

All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHH, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private.

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 Number for the EPA regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 hours per response. “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 which have subsequently changed; 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: Owners or operators of natural gas transmission and storage facilities.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 836.

Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 950.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $91,018, which includes $91,018 in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and no operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in labor hours and costs for both the respondents and the Agency from the most recently approved ICR. This is due to two considerations. First, the estimated number of respondents subject to the standard has increased due to industry growth in the past three years. Second, this ICR uses updated labor rates to reflect the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409D(d)(2) to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to the criteria for air quality standards, research related to air quality, sources of air pollution, and the strategies to attain and maintain air quality standards and to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the CASAC Lead Review Panel will hold a face-to-face public meeting to peer review EPA's second external review draft of the Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (February 2012). The CASAC Lead Review Panel will hold a follow-up public teleconference to discuss its draft review and the Chartered CASAC will hold a public teleconference to discuss the Panel's draft review. This is being prepared as part of the review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead. The CASAC Lead Review Panel and the CASAC will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires that the Agency periodically review and revise, as appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including lead. EPA is currently reviewing the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for lead. The CASAC Lead Review Panel previously reviewed EPA's first external review draft of the Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (May 2011) as reported in a CASAC letter to the EPA Administrator, dated December 9, 2011 (EPA-CASAC-12-002).

Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning the Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (Second External Review Draft—February 2012) should be directed to Dr. Ellen Kirrane ( kirrane.ellen@epa.gov ).

Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible through the calendar link on the blue navigation bar at http://www.epa.gov/casac/ .

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office.

Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments for a federal advisory committee to consider pertaining to EPA's charge to the panel or meeting materials. Input from the public to the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for CASAC panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly.

Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation will be limited to five minutes for the public face-to-face meeting and will be limited to three minutes for the public teleconferences. Interested parties should contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by April 3, 2012, to be placed on the list of public speakers for the CASAC Lead Review Panel's face-to-face public meeting and by May 23, 2012, for the CASAC Lead Review Panel's follow-up public teleconference. Interested parties should contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by July 9, 2012, to be placed on the list of public speakers for the Chartered CASAC quality review public teleconference. Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the Mr. Yeow, DFO, via email at the contact information noted above by April 3, 2012, for the CASAC Lead Review Panel's face-to-face public meeting, and by May 23, 2012, for the CASAC Lead Review Panel's follow-up public teleconference so that the information may be made available to the Panel members for their consideration. Written statements should be supplied to Dr. Stallworth, DFO, via email at the contact information noted above by July 9, 2012, for the Chartered CASAC's quality review public teleconference. Written statements should be supplied in one of the following electronic formats: Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the CASAC Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow at (202) 564-2050 or yeow.aaron@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Mr. Yeow preferably at least ten days prior to the public meeting and/or teleconference to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by Kentucky Environmental Foundation seeking to compel the Agency to take final action under sections 110(k)(2) and (3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(2) and (3), on the State of Kentucky's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals dated December 3, 2008. Specifically, the lawsuit seeks to compel the Agency to take final action, pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k), on the 1997 P.M. 2.5 nonattainment area requirements, including the attainment demonstrations, contingency measures, emissions inventories, and reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology requirements in the Cincinnati-Hamilton SIP and the Louisville SIP.

On March 9, 2011, and September 29, 2011, respectively, EPA determined that the Cincinnati-Hamilton and the Louisville areas had attained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 12860; 76 FR 60373. On September 30, 2011, the State of Kentucky withdrew its previously submitted attainment demonstrations, contingency measures, and reasonably available control measures for the Cincinnati-Hamilton SIP and the Louisville SIP but did not withdraw any portions of its submittals for the Cincinnati-Hamilton SIP and the Louisville SIP that pertain to emissions inventories. On December 15, 2011, EPA approved the emissions inventory in the Cincinnati-Hamilton SIP. See 76 FR 77903.

The proposed consent decree requires that, no later than October 1, 2012, the appropriate EPA official shall sign a notice of final rulemaking approving, disapproving, or approving in part and disapproving in part the emissions inventory in the Louisville SIP. In addition, the proposed consent decree requires that, following signature, EPA shall expeditiously deliver the notice to the Office of the Federal Register for publication in the Federal Register and shall thereafter provide a copy of the notice to Plaintiff within ten (10) days. After EPA fulfills its obligations under the proposed consent decree, the consent decree may be terminated.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the proposed consent decree will be affirmed.

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0190) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search”.

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov , your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

This proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit alleging that the Administrator failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty to grant or deny, within 60 days of submission, an administrative petition to object to a CAA title V permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for the Georgia Pacific Consumer Products Plant in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Under the proposed consent decree, EPA would agree to respond to the petition by July 23, 2012, or within 14 days after entry of the consent decree by the Court, whichever is later, and pay specified attorneys fees to the Plaintiffs. The Court would then dismiss the case with prejudice once EPA has fulfilled these obligations under the consent decree.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0143) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official 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 appropriate docket identification number.

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

Section 10(g)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires FHFA to promulgate regulations establishing standards of community investment or service Bank members must meet in order to maintain access to long-term advances. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(g)(1). The regulations promulgated by FHFA must take into account factors such as the Bank member's performance under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA), 12 U.S.C. 2901 et seq., and record of lending to first-time homebuyers. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(g)(2). Pursuant to section 10(g) of the Bank Act, FHFA has promulgated a community support requirements regulation that establishes standards a Bank member must meet in order to maintain access to long-term advances, and review criteria FHFA must apply in evaluating a member's community support performance. See 12 CFR part 1290. The regulation includes standards and criteria for the two statutory factors—CRA performance and record of lending to first-time homebuyers. 12 CFR 1290.3. Only members subject to the CRA must meet the CRA standard. 12 CFR 1290.3(b). All members, including those not subject to CRA, must meet the first-time homebuyer standard. 12 CFR 1290.3(c).

Under the rule, FHFA selects approximately one-eighth of the members in each Bank district for community support review each calendar quarter. 12 CFR 1290.2(a). FHFA will not review an institution's community support performance until it has been a Bank member for at least one year. Selection for review is not, nor should it be construed as, any indication of either the financial condition or the community support performance of the member.

Each Bank member selected for review must complete a Community Support Statement and submit it to FHFA by the April 27, 2012 deadline prescribed in this notice. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(1)(ii) and (c). On or before March 27, 2012, each Bank will notify the members in its district that have been selected for the 2010 fifth round community support review cycle that they must complete and submit to FHFA by the deadline a Community Support Statement. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(2)(i). The member's Bank will provide a blank Community Support Statement Form (OMB No. 2590-0005), which also is available on the FHFA's Web site: http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/2924/FHFAForm060.pdf . Upon request, the member's Bank also will provide assistance in completing the Community Support Statement.

FHFA has selected the following members for the 2010 fifth round community support review cycle: