Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables that are not requirements of Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements, no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs.

AMS is establishing United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine using procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).

On May 26, 2006, AMS published a notice in the Federal Register (71 FR 30367), that solicited comments on the proposed voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine. The proposed standards contained sections pertaining to general information, grades, tolerances, application of tolerances, size classifications, definitions, and a table of metric conversions. The following grades and tolerances for each grade also appeared in the notice: U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2. In addition, “Application of Tolerances” section and “Size classification” section were listed. The standards also defined “Damage,” “Serious damage,” “Tomatoes on the Vine,” along with other specific basic requirements and defects. Additionally, AMS also sought any comments related to the proposed standards that may be necessary to better serve the industry.

In response to the notice, AMS received six comments on the proposed standards. The comments are available by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm.

On February 16, 2007, AMS published a subsequent notice in the Federal Register (72 FR 7593-4), that solicited comments on the proposed voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine based on comments received from the primary notice. A single comment was received on behalf of a trade group representing growers and packers, expressing the need for additional time to comment. The group requested an extension to the comment period to allow review of the proposed voluntary standards and consider comments.

AMS published a reopening and extension of the comment period in the Federal Register (71 FR 34426), on June 22, 2007. The comment period for the extension ended on August 21, 2007. AMS received no additional comments from the industry on the proposed standards.

The adoption of the U.S. grade standards will provide the tomatoes on the vine industry with U.S. grade standards similar to those extensively in use by the fresh produce industry to assist in orderly marketing of other commodities. Accordingly, AMS is adopting the United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine as proposed in the February 16, 2007, Federal Register notice.

The official grade of a lot of tomatoes on the vine covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61).

The United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

Title: Agriculture Smuggling Tips and Referrals (PPQ Form 300).

OMB Number: 0579-xxxx.

Type of Request: Approval of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ) and the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any animal, plant, animal or plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, means of conveyance, or other article if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent a plant pest or noxious weed, or any pest or disease of livestock, from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which conducts activities to implement these Acts, including issuing and enforcing regulations.

APHIS' Smuggling, Interdiction, and Trade Compliance (SITC) unit, part of the Plant Protection and Quarantine program, is involved in efforts to prevent the unlawful importation, entry, and distribution of prohibited agricultural commodities and products that may harbor harmful plant or animal pests or diseases or noxious weeds. SITC's activities include following up on tips and referrals from the public concerning possible smuggling activities. When SITC officers have evidence of a violation of the regulations, they turn the information over to APHIS' Investigative and Enforcement Services unit.

A toll-free telephone “hotline” is currently available to members of the public who wish to report suspicious activity to SITC. However, this hotline is not staffed full-time, and callers are sometimes difficult to understand or do not include enough information for SITC to follow up on the tip. Therefore, SITC has developed a form that will be made available on the APHIS Web site, as an alternative to the telephone hotline. The form requests specific information regarding the suspicious activity and may be submitted anonymously either by e-mail or by postal mail.

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

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning this 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 information collection, 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 information collection 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 0.1 hours per response.

Respondents: Anyone (public/industry) who anonymously reports suspicious smuggling activities.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 300.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 300.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 30 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.

The collections of information for this rule revise the Multiple Peril Crop Insurance Collections of Information 0563-0053, which expire June 30, 2008.

Title: Multiple Peril Crop Insurance.

OMB Number: 0563-0053.

Expiration Date of Approval: June 30, 2008.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The information collection requirements for this renewal package are necessary for administering the crop insurance program. Producers are required to report specific data when they apply for crop insurance and report acreage, yields and notices of loss. Insurance companies accept applications; issue policies; establish and provide insurance coverage; compute liability, premium, subsidies, and losses; indemnify producers; and report specific data to FCIC as required in Manual 13. Insurance agents market crop and livestock insurance and service the producer. The following commodities (and Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR), Adjusted Gross Revenue Lite (AGR-Lite), and Nutrient BMP) are included in this information collection package: almonds, apples, avocados, avocado and mango trees, barley, dry beans, beans, blackberries, blueberries, buckwheat, cabbage, canola/rapeseed, cattle, cherries, citrus fruit, citrus trees, clams, corn, sweet corn, cotton, cranberries, figs, flax, forage production, forage seed, forage seeding, grain sorghum, grapes, Hawaiian tropical fruit and tree, hybrid seed corn, hybrid sorghum seed, lentils, macadamia nuts, macadamia trees, millet, mint, mustard, nursery, oats, onions, pasture, peaches, peanuts, pears, dry peas, green peas, pecans, chili peppers, peppers, plums, popcorn, potatoes, prunes, raisins, rangeland, raspberries, rice, wild rice, rye, safflowers, soybeans, stonefruit, strawberries, sugar beets, sugar cane, sunflowers, sweet potatoes, swine, tobacco, tomatoes, walnuts, and wheat.

FCIC is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend the approval of this information collection for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public concerning this information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(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 (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information are estimated to average 0.4 of an hour per response.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Producers and insurance companies reinsured by FCIC.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,248,281.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses Per Respondent: 3.6.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 4,551,705.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,866,457.

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: 7 CFR 1901-E, Civil Rights Compliance Requirements.

OMB Number: 0575-0018.

Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2008.

Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection.

Abstract: The information collection under OMB Number 0575-0018 enables USDA Rural Development to effectively monitor a recipient's compliance with the civil rights laws, and to determine whether or not service and benefits are being provided to beneficiaries on an equal opportunity basis.

USDA Rural Development is required to provide Federal financial assistance through its housing and community and business programs on an equal opportunity basis. The laws implemented in 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E, require the recipients of USDA Rural Development Federal financial assistance to collect various types of information, including information on participants in certain of these agencies' programs, by race, color, and national origin.

The information collected and maintained by the recipients of certain programs from USDA Rural Development is used internally by these agencies for monitoring compliance with the civil rights laws and regulations. This information is made available to USDA officials, officials of other Federal agencies, and to Congress for reporting purposes. Without the required information, USDA Rural Development and its recipients will lack the necessary documentation to demonstrate that their programs are being administered in a nondiscriminatory manner, and in full compliance with the civil rights laws. In addition, USDA Rural Development and their recipients would be vulnerable in lawsuits alleging discrimination in the affected programs of these agencies, and would be without appropriate data and documentation to defend themselves by demonstrating that services and benefits are being provided to beneficiaries on an equal opportunity basis.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 8 hours per response.

Respondents: Recipients of USDA Rural Development Federal financial assistance, loan, and loan guarantee programs.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 27,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 3.

Estimated Number of Responses: 72,222.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 560,601.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, at (202) 692-0043.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Rural Development, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agencies' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 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. Comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0742, Washington, DC 20250-0742. 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: Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program.

OMB Number: 0575-0174.

Expiration Date of Approval: October 31, 2008.

Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection.

Abstract: On March 28, 1996, President Clinton signed the “Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996.” One of the provisions of the Act was the authorization of the section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Loan Program, adding the program to the Housing Act of 1949. The program has been designed to increase the supply of affordable multifamily housing through partnerships between RHS and major lending sources, as well as state and local housing finance agencies and bond issuers. Qualified lenders will be authorized to originate, underwrite, and close loans for multifamily housing projects. To be considered, these projects must be either new construction or acquisition with rehabilitation with at least $6,500 per unit.

The housing must be available for occupancy only to low or moderate income families or persons, whose incomes at the time of initial occupancy do not exceed 115 percent of the median income of the area. After initial occupancy, the tenant's income may exceed these limits; however, rents, including utilities, are restricted to no more than 30 percent of the 115 percent of area median income for the term of the loan.

The Secretary is authorized under section 510 (k) to prescribe regulations to ensure that these federally funded loans are made to eligible applicants for authorized purposes. The lender must evaluate the eligibility, cost, benefits, feasibility, and financial performance of the proposed project. The Agency collects this information from the lender to determine if funds are being used to meet the goals and mission of Rural Development. The information submitted by the lender to the Agency is used by the Agency to manage, plan, evaluate, and account for Government resources.

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

Respondents: Nonprofit and for-profit lending corporations and public bodies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 462.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 6.5.

Estimated Number of Responses: 3020.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,588 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at (202) 692-0042.

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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 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. Comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250. 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.

Background: The MBEC Program is a key component of MBDA's overall minority business development assistance program and promotes the growth and competitiveness of eligible minority-owned businesses. MBEC operators leverage project staff and professional consultants to provide a wide-range of direct business assistance services to eligible minority-owned firms, including but not limited to initial consultations and assessments, business technical assistance, and access to federal and non-federal procurement and financing opportunities. MBDA currently funds a network of 31 MBEC projects located throughout the United States. Pursuant to this notice, competitive applications for new awards are being solicited for the MBEC project identified below.

Pursuant to a grant competition held in 2006, MBDA made a three (3) year award for the operation of the El Paso MBEC project for the period January 1, 2007—December 31, 2009. See 72 FR 42351. The operator of this project has since requested a termination of the award effective as of December 31, 2007. The purpose of this competition is to find a new operator for the El Paso MBEC project as MBDA intends to maintain program service delivery in this geographical service area. The new award for this project is expected to be made with an award period of April 1, 2008—December 31, 2009.

Locations and Geographical Service Areas: MBDA is soliciting competitive applications from organizations to operate an MBEC in the following location and geographical service area:

Electronic Access: A link to the full text of the Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) for this solicitation may be accessed at: http://www.Grants.gov, http://www.mbda.gov, or by contacting the appropriate MBDA representative identified above. The FFO contains a full and complete description of the requirements under the MBEC Program. In order to receive proper consideration, applicants must comply with all information and requirements contained in the FFO. Applicants will be able to access, download and submit electronic grant applications for the MBEC Program through http://www.Grants.gov . MBDA strongly recommends that applicants not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as in some cases the process for completing an online application may require additional time (e.g., 3-5 working days). The date that applications will be deemed to have been submitted electronically shall be the date and time received at Grants.gov. Applicants should save and print the proof of submission they receive from Grants.gov. Applications received after the closing date and time will not be considered.

Funding Priorities: Preference may be given during the selection process to applications which address the following MBDA funding priorities:

(a) Proposals that include performance goals that exceed by 10% or more the minimum performance goal requirements in the FFO;

(b) Applicants who demonstrate an exceptional ability to identify and work towards the elimination of barriers which limit the access of minority businesses to markets and capital;

(c) Applicants who demonstrate an exceptional ability to identify and work with minority firms seeking to obtain large-scale contracts and/or insertion into supply chains with institutional customers;

(d) Proposals that take a regional approach in providing services to eligible clients; or

(e) Proposals from applicants with pre-existing or established operations in the identified geographic service area(s).

Funding Availability: MBDA anticipates that a total of approximately $152,775 will be available in FY 2008 and that a total of approximately $203,700 will be available in FY 2009 to fund one financial assistance award for the El Paso MBEC project. The total award period for the project is anticipated to be twenty-one (21) months and the award is expected to be made with a start date of April 1, 2008. The total anticipated amount of the financial assistance award for the El Paso MBEC project (including the minimum 20% non-federal cost share) is as follows:

Applicants are hereby given notice that FY 2008 funds have not yet been appropriated for the MBEC program. Accordingly, MBDA issues this notice subject to the appropriations made available under the current continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 52, “Making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes,” Public Law 110-92, as amended by H.R. 3222, Public Law 110-116. In no event will MBDA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other MBDA or Department of Commerce priorities.

Proposals will be evaluated with respect to the applicant's experience and expertise in providing the work requirements listed. Specifically, proposals will be evaluated as follows:

(a) Community —Experience in and knowledge of the minority community, minority business sector, and strategies for enhancing its growth and expansion; particular emphasis shall be on expanding SGI firms. Consideration will be given as to whether the applicant has a physical presence in the geographic service area at the time of its application (4 points);

(b) Business Consulting —Experience in and knowledge of business consulting with respect to minority firms, with emphasis on SGI firms in the geographic service area (5 points);

(c) Financing —Experience in and knowledge of the preparation and formulation of successful financial transactions, with an emphasis on the geographic service area (5 points);

(d) Procurements and Contracting —Experience in and knowledge of the public and private sector contracting opportunities for minority businesses, as well as demonstrated expertise in assisting clients into supply chains (5 points);

(e) Financing Networks —Resources and professional relationships within the corporate, banking and investment community that may be beneficial to minority-owned firms (5 points);

(f) Establishment of a Self-Sustainable Service Model —Summary plan to establish a self-sustainable model for continued services to the MBE communities beyond the MBDA award period (3 points);

(g) MBE Advocacy —Experience and expertise in advocating on behalf of minority communities and minority businesses, both as to specific transactions in which a minority business seeks to engage and as to broad market advocacy for the benefit of the minority community at large (3 points); and

(h) Key Staff —Assessment of the qualifications, experience and proposed role of staff that will operate the MBEC. In particular, an assessment will be made to determine whether proposed key staff possesses the expertise in utilizing information systems and the ability to successfully deliver program services. At a minimum the applicant must identify a proposed project director. (10 points).

The applicant's proposal will be evaluated as follows:

(a) Resources —Resources (not included as part of the non-federal cost share) that will be used in implementing the program, including but not limited to existing prior and/or current data lists that will serve in fostering immediate success for the MBEC (8 points);

(b) Location —Assessment of the applicant's strategic rationale for the proposed physical location of the MBEC. Applicant is encouraged to establish a location for the MBEC that is in a building which is separate and apart from any of the applicant's existing offices in the geographic service area (2 points);

(c) Partners —How the applicant plans to establish and maintain the network of strategic partners and the manner in which these partners will support the MBEC in meeting program performance goals (5 points); and

(d) Equipment —How the applicant plans to satisfy the MBEC information technology requirements, including computer hardware, software requirements and network map (5 points).

The applicant's proposal will be evaluated as follows:

(a) Performance Measures —For each funding period, the manner in which the applicant relates each performance measure to the financial information and market resources available in the geographic service area (including existing client list); how the applicant will create MBEC brand recognition (marketing plan); and how the applicant will satisfy program performance goals. In particular, emphasis may be placed on the manner in which the applicant matches MBEC performance goals with client service hours and how it accounts for existing market conditions in its strategy to achieve such goals (10 points);

(b) Start-up Phase —How the applicant will commence MBEC operations within the initial 30-day period. The MBEC shall have thirty (30) days to become fully operational after an award is made (3 points); and

(c) Work Requirement Execution Plan —The applicant will be evaluated on how effectively and efficiently staff time will be used to achieve the work requirements, particularly with respect to periods beyond the start-up phase (7 points).

The applicant's proposal will be evaluated as follows:

(a) Reasonableness, Allowability and Allocability of Proposed Program Costs . All of the proposed program costs expenditures should be discussed and the budget line-item narrative must match the proposed budget. Fringe benefits and other percentage item calculations should match the proposed budget line-item and narrative (5 points);

(b) Non-Federal Cost Share . The required 20% non-Federal share must be adequately addressed and properly documented, including but not limited to how client fees (if proposed) will be used by the applicant in meeting the non-federal cost-share (5 points); and

(c) Performance-Based Budgeting . The extent to which the line-item budget and budget narrative relate to the accomplishment of the MBEC work requirements and performance measures ( i.e. , performance-based budgeting) (10 points).

Bonus for Non-Federal Cost Sharing (maximum of 5 points): Proposals with non-federal cost sharing exceeding 20% of the total project costs will be awarded bonus points on the following scale: more than 20%—less than 25% = 1 point; 25% or more—less than 30% = 2 points; 30% or more—less than 35% = 3 points; 35% or more—less than 40% = 4 points; and 40% or more = 5 points. Non-federal cost sharing of at least 20% is required under the MBEC Program. Non-federal cost sharing is the portion of the total project cost not borne by the Federal Government and may be met by the applicant in any one or more of the following four means (or a combination thereof): (1) Client fees; (2) cash contributions; (3) non-cash applicant contributions; or, (4) third party in-kind contributions.

Oral presentations are optional and held only when requested by MBDA. This action may be initiated for the top two (2) ranked applications. Oral presentations will be used to establish a final evaluation and ranking.

The applicant's presentation will be evaluated as to the extent to which the presentation demonstrates:

(a) How the applicant will effectively and efficiently assist MBDA in the accomplishment of its mission (2 points);

(b) Business operating priorities designed to manage a successful MBEC (2 points);

(c) A management philosophy that achieves an effective balance between micromanagement and complete autonomy for its Project Director (2 points);

(d) Robust search criteria for the identification of a Project Director (1 point);

(e) Effective employee recruitment and retention policies and procedures (1 point); and

(f) A competitive and innovative approach to exceeding performance requirements (2 points).

Prior to the formal paneling process, each application will receive an initial screening to ensure that all required forms, signatures and documentation are present. An application will be considered non-responsive and will not be evaluated by the review panel if it is received after the closing date for receipt of applications, the applicant fails to submit an original, signed Form SF-424 by the application closing date (paper applications only), or the application does not provide for the operation of a MBEC. Other application deficiencies may be accounted for through point deductions during panel review.

Each application will receive an independent, objective review by a panel qualified to evaluate the applications submitted. The review panel will consist of at least 3 persons, all of whom will be full-time federal employees and at least one of whom will be an MBDA employee, who will review the applications for a specified project based on the above evaluation criterion. Each reviewer shall evaluate and provide a score for each proposal. Each project review panel (through the panel Chairperson) shall provide the MBDA National Director (Recommending Official) with a ranking of the applications based on the average of the reviewers' scores and shall also provide a recommendation regarding funding of the highest scoring application.

MBDA may invite the two (2) top-ranked applicants to develop and provide an oral presentation. If an oral presentation is requested, the affected applicants will receive a formal communication (via standard mail, e-mail or fax) from MBDA indicating the time and date for the presentation. In-person presentations are not mandatory but are encouraged; telephonic presentations are acceptable. Applicants will be asked to submit a PowerPoint presentation (or equivalent) to MBDA that addresses the oral presentation criteria set forth above. The presentation must be submitted at least 24 hours before the scheduled date and time of the presentation. The presentation will be made to the MBDA National Director (or his/her designee) and up to three senior MBDA staff who did not serve on the original review panel. The oral panel members may ask follow-up questions after the presentation. MBDA will provide the teleconference dial-in number and pass code. Each applicant will present to MBDA staff only; competitors are not permitted to listen (and/or watch) other presentations.

All costs pertaining to this presentation shall be borne by the applicant. MBEC award funds may not be used as a reimbursement for this presentation. MBDA will not accept any requests or petitions for reimbursement.

The oral panel members shall score each presentation in accordance with the oral presentation criterion provided above. An average score shall be compiled and added to the score of the original panel review.

The MBDA National Director makes the final recommendation to the Grants Officer regarding the funding of one application under this competitive solicitation. MBDA expects to recommend for funding the highest ranking application, as evaluated and recommended by the review panel and taking into account oral presentations (as applicable). However, the MBDA National Director may not make any selection, or he may select an application out of rank order for the following reasons:

(a) A determination that an application better addresses one or more of the funding priorities for this competition. The National Director (or his/her designee) reserves the right to conduct one or more site visits (subject to the availability of funding), in order to make a better assessment of an applicant's capability to achieve the funding priorities; or

(b) The availability of MBDA funding.

Prior to making a final recommendation to the Grants Officer, MBDA may request that the apparent winner of the competition provide written clarifications (as necessary) regarding its application.

Intergovernmental Review: Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Limitation of Liability: In no event will MBDA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other MBDA or Department of Commerce priorities. All funding periods are subject to the availability of funds to support the continuation of the project and the Department of Commerce and MBDA priorities. Publication of this notice does not obligate the Department of Commerce or MBDA to award any specific cooperative agreement or to obligate all or any part of available funds.

Universal Identifier: Applicants should be aware that they will be required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering system (DUNS) number during the application process. See the June 27, 2003 Federal Register notice (68 FR 38402) for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or by accessing the Grants.gov Web site at http://www.Grants.gov .

Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements: The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) are applicable to this solicitation.

Paperwork Reduction Act: This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Executive Order 12866: This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act: Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts (5 U.S.C. 533(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 533 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq. ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

Background

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

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

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

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

On August 24, 2007, NMFS received an application from L-DEO for the taking, by Level B harassment only, of small numbers of 26 species of marine mammals incidental to conducting, under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (NSF), a seismic survey in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea off Central America as part of the Subduction Factory (SubFac) initiative of NSF's MARGINS program from January-March, 2008. (The dates of the cruise were subsequently moved to the February-April 2008 timeframe.) The MARGINS program was developed to facilitate the study of continental margins. The SubFac initiative will determine the inputs, outputs, and controlling processes of subduction zone systems by obtaining seismic measurements of magma flux, arc composition, and lower-plate serpentinization at the Central American Focus Site.

The seismic survey will involve one source vessel, the R/V Marcus G. Langseth ( Langseth ), which will operate in two regions during the proposed survey: the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The Langseth will deploy an array of 36 airguns (6,600 in 3  ) as an energy source and, at times, a receiving system consisting of a 6-km (3.7-mi) towed hydrophone streamer. The streamer will be towed at a depth of 5-8 m (16-26 ft). As the airgun array 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. In the Caribbean region, the Langseth will also deploy Ocean Bottom Seismometers (OBSs) to receive the returning acoustic signals. In the Pacific Ocean, a second vessel, the R/V New Horizon, will deploy and retrieve the OBSs.

For the first part of the cruise, the Langseth is expected to depart Puerto Limon, Costa Rica, on approximately February 3, 2008 for the study area in the Caribbean Sea (see Figure 1 in the application). The seismic survey will commence following the transit and deployment of the streamer and airgun array. Following approximately 25 days of surveying in the Caribbean Sea, all equipment will be recovered, and the vessel will return to Puerto Limon on approximately March 5, 2008. The vessel will then transit through the Panama Canal, likely taking on fuel in Panama. The second part of the survey will commence in the Pacific Ocean on approximately March 11, 2008 from Puerto Caldera, Costa Rica. The Pacific survey is estimated to last approximately 25 days. Currently, the vessel is scheduled to arrive at an unspecified port (likely in Panama) on April 6, 2008. The order of the two surveys may be reversed due to logistics, if necessary. The exact dates of the activities depend upon logistics, as well as weather conditions and/or the need to repeat some lines if data quality is substandard.

The Central American SubFac survey will encompass the area from 9.6°−14° N., 82°−83.8° W. in the Caribbean Sea and the area 8°−11.5° N., 83.6°−88° W. in the Pacific Ocean (see Figure 1 in the application). Water depths in the survey area range from less than 100 m (328 ft) to greater than 2,500 m (8,202 ft). The seismic survey will take place in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

The marine seismic survey will consist of approximately 2,149 km (1,335 mi) of unique survey lines: 753 km (468 mi) in the Caribbean and 1,396 km (867 mi) in the Pacific (see Table 1 in the application). With the exception of two lines (D and E) located in shallow to intermediate-depth water, all lines will be shot twice, once at approximately a 50 m (164 ft; 20-s) shot spacing for multichannel seismic data and once at approximately a 200 m (656 ft; 80-s) shot spacing for OBS refraction data, for a total of approximately 3,980 km (2,473 mi) of survey lines (see Table 1 in the application). The approximate numbers of line kilometers expected to be surveyed in the Pacific and Caribbean in three different water depth categories are shown in Table 2 of the application. There will be additional operations associated with equipment testing, startup, line changes, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is substandard. There may also be an additional 77 km (48 mi) of survey effort in the Pacific Ocean around Culebra off Nicoya Peninsula not reflected in Table 1 of L-DEO's application. These additional six transect lines will occur in water greater than 100 m (328 ft) deep and are not expected to increase the number of takes by harassment (see below).

The New Horizon will be the dedicated OBS vessel during the Pacific part of the survey and will deploy and retrieve the OBSs. A combination of 85 OBSs (150 total deployments) will be used during the project. A total of 60 OBS deployments will take place in the Caribbean (from the Langseth ), and 90 deployments will take place in the Pacific from the New Horizon.

In addition to the operations of the airgun array, a 12-kHz Simrad EM120 multibeam echosounder (MBES) will be operated from the Langseth continuously throughout the cruise. Also, a 3.5-kHz sub-bottom profiler (SBP) will be operated by the Langseth during most of the survey and during normal operations by the New Horizon.

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

The New Horizon will be the dedicated OBS vessel during the Pacific part of the survey and will deploy and retrieve the OBSs. The ship has a length of 51.8 m (170 ft), a beam of 11 m (36 ft), and a maximum draft of 3.7 m (12 ft). The ship is powered by two 850 hp D398 Caterpillar engines. The typical cruising speed is 18.5 km/h (10 kt) with a maximum speed of 22.8 km/h (12.3 kt). The New Horizon has a range of 18,000 km (11,185 mi).

During the survey, the airgun array to be used will consist of 36 airguns, with a total volume of approximately 6,600 in 3 . The airguns will comprise a mixture of Bolt 1500LL and 1900LL airguns. The array will consist of four identical linear arrays or “strings” (see Figure 2 in L-DEO's application). Each string will have ten airguns; the first and last airguns in each string are spaced 16 m (52.5 ft) apart. Nine airguns in each string will be fired simultaneously, while the tenth is kept in reserve as a spare, to be turned on in case of failure of another airgun. The four airgun strings will be distributed across an approximate area of 24 × 16 m (78.7 × 52.5 ft) behind the Langseth and will be towed approximately 50-100 m (164-328 ft) behind the vessel. The firing pressure of the array is 2,000 psi. The airgun array will fire in two modes: every 50 m (164 ft; 20 s) or every 200 m (656 ft; 80 s). During firing, a brief (approximately 0.1 s) pulse of sound is emitted. The airguns will be silent during the intervening periods. The airguns will be towed at a depth of 9 or 12 m (29.5 or 39 ft). The dominant frequency components are 0-188 Hz.

Received sound levels have been predicted by L-DEO for the 36-airgun array operating in deep water and for a single 1900LL 40 in 3 airgun to be used during power-downs (see below). The predicted received levels depend upon distance and direction from the airguns. This source, which is directed downward, was found to have an output (0-peak) of 258 dB re 1 μPa m. The maximum relevant depth (2,000 m; 6,562 ft) represents the maximum anticipated dive depth of marine mammals and is relevant for predicting safety or exclusion zones (EZs; see below). A detailed description of L-DEO's modeling effort is provided in Appendix A of the application.

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

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

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

NMFS has determined that for acoustic effects, using acoustic thresholds in combination with corresponding safety radii is the most effective way to consistently apply measures to avoid or minimize the impacts of an action, and to quantitatively estimate the effects of an action. Thresholds are used in two ways: (1) To establish a mitigation shut-down or power down zone, i.e., if an animal enters an area calculated to be ensonified above the level of an established threshold, a sound source is powered down or shut down; and (2) to calculate take, in that a model may be used to calculate the area around the sound source that will be ensonified to that level or above, then, based on the estimated density of animals and the distance that the sound source moves, NMFS can estimate the number of marine mammals that may be “taken”. NMFS believes that to avoid permanent physiological damage (Level A Harassment), cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding, respectively, 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). NMFS also assumes that cetaceans or pinnipeds exposed to levels exceeding 160 dB re 1μPa (rms) may experience Level B Harassment.

The depth at which the source is towed impacts the maximum near-field output and the shape of the frequency spectrum. If the source is towed at a relatively deep depth (e.g., approximately 12 m; 39 ft), the effective source level for sound propagating in near-horizontal directions is substantially greater than if the array is towed at shallower depths (e.g., approximately 9 m; 29.5 ft; see Figure 4 vs. Figure 3 in the application).

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

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

Empirical measurements indicated that in shallow water (<100 m; 328 ft), the L-DEO model underestimates actual levels. In previous L-DEO projects done since the calibration results were obtained by Tolstoy et al. (2004a,b), the EZs in shallow water were typically adjusted upward from the values predicted by L-DEO's model by factors of 1.3x to 15x depending on the size of the airgun array and the sound level measured (Tolstoy et al. , 2004b). During the proposed cruise, similar factors will be applied to the shallow-water radii (see Table 3 in the application and Table 1 here).

Empirical measurements were not conducted for intermediate depths (100-1,000 m; 328-3,280 ft). On the expectation that results would be intermediate between those from shallow and deep water, a correction factor of 1.5x was applied during former L-DEO cruises to the estimates provided by the model for deep-water situations to obtain estimates for intermediate-depth sites. The correction factor was used during previous L-DEO surveys and will be used during the proposed study for intermediate depths (see Table 3 in the application and Table 1 here).

Table 3 in the application and Table 1 here outline the distances to which sound levels of the various EZs might be received, considering both the 36-airgun array and a single airgun in three different water depths. In deep water, the maximum depth considered is 2,000 m (6,562 ft). If marine mammals are detected within or about to enter the appropriate EZ, the airguns will be powered down (or shutdown if necessary) immediately.

Because the predictions in Table 3 in the application and Table 1 here are based in part on empirical correction factors derived from acoustic calibration of different airgun configurations than those to be used on the Langseth ( cf. Tolstoy et al. , 2004a,b), L-DEO is planning an acoustic calibration study of the Langseth 's 36-airgun (6,600 in 3 ) array, which is scheduled to go out in the Gulf of Mexico in January 2008. Distances where sound levels (e.g., 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 μPa) are received in deep, intermediate, and shallow water will be determined for various airgun configurations. The empirical data from the calibration study will be used to refine the EZs used during the Central American SubFac survey, if the data are appropriate and available at the time of the survey.

A total of 34 marine mammal species are known to or may occur in the study area off Central America, including 25 odontocete (dolphins and small and large toothed whales) species, six mysticete (baleen whales) species, two pinniped species, and the West Indian manatee. Six of the species that may occur in the project area are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) as Endangered: The sperm, humpback, sei, fin, and blue whale and the manatee. The West Indian manatee is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and therefore is not considered further in this analysis.

The distribution and occurrence of marine mammal species are different on the Pacific and Caribbean coasts of Central America; therefore, these two areas are discussed separately here and in greater detail in L-DEO's application. Thirty-two species of marine mammals have been documented to occur in Costa Rican waters, most of which are cetaceans (Rodríguez-Herrera et al. , 2002). At least 10 of the 32 species are known to occur on the Caribbean side, including the manatee (Rodríguez-Fonseca, 2001 and pers. comm.; Rodríguez-Herrera et al. , 2002). Twenty-seven species are known to occur on the Pacific side of Costa Rica, including the California and Galápagos sea lions (see Wade and Gerrodette, 1993; Ferguson and Barlow, 2001; Rodríguez-Fonseca, 2001; Rodríguez-Herrera et al. , 2002; Rasmussen et al. , 2004; Holst et al. , 2005a; May-Collado et al. , 2005). In addition there are two other species that could potentially occur in the Pacific study area: the ginkgo-toothed (e.g., Rodríguez-Fonseca, 2001) and Longman's beaked whales (e.g., Pitman et al. , 1999; Ferguson and Barlow, 2001). Information on the occurrence, distribution, population size, and conservation status for each of the 34 marine mammal species that may occur in the proposed project area is presented in Table 5 of L-DEO's application.

Studies of marine mammals inhabiting the Caribbean have been scarce (Jefferson and Lynn, 1994; Rodríguez-Fonseca, 2001), and abundance in this area is mostly unknown (Roden and Mullin, 2000). At least one systematic ship-based study employing visual and passive-acoustic survey methods has been undertaken in the eastern Caribbean (Swartz and Burks, 2000; Swartz et al. , 2001, 2003). In addition, an extensive visual and acoustic survey was conducted in the SE Caribbean Sea off northern Venezuela from the Ewing and the R/V Seward Johnson II as part of a marine mammal monitoring program during an L-DEO marine seismic cruise in April-June 2004 (Smultea et al. , 2004). Data on the western Caribbean is even more limited.

One mysticete, eight odontocetes, and one sirenian are known to occur in the Caribbean study area (Rodríguez-Fonseca, 2001 and pers. comm.; Rodríguez-Herrera et al. , 2002). These include the fin, sperm, short-finned pilot, and killer whale; the bottlenose, Atlantic spotted, and clymene dolphin; tucuxi, Gervais' beaked whale, and West Indian manatee. The last four of these species only occur in the Caribbean part of the study area (see Table 5 of the application). Based on other available information (Swartz and Burks, 2000; Romero et al. , 2001; Swartz et al. , 2001, 2003; Smultea et al. , 2004), an additional five species may potentially occur in the study area: two mysticetes (humpback and Bryde's whale) and three delphinids (pantropical spotted, striped, and rough-toothed dolphin). Pinnipeds are unlikely to be seen in the Caribbean part of the study area. Vagrant hooded seals have been seen in the Caribbean (Rice, 1998; Mignucci-Giannoni and Odell, 2001; Reeves et al. , 2002), but are not considered further here. The Caribbean monk seal ( Monachus tropicalis ) is considered extinct (Debrot, 2000; Mignucci-Giannoni and Odell, 2001).

Of the 36 marine mammal species known to occur in the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP), 29 may occur in the proposed survey area off the west coast of Costa Rica and Nicaragua (see Table 5 of the application). Seven species that are present in the wider ETP but not in the proposed survey area are excluded from Table 5. They include: Pacific white-sided dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ) and Baird's beaked whale ( Berardius bairdii ), which are seen very occasionally (6 and 2 sightings, respectively, in several years of surveys) in the northernmost portions of the ETP (Ferguson and Barlow, 2001); Long-beaked common dolphin ( Delphinus capensis ), which is known to occur in the northernmost areas of the ETP off Baja California, Mexico, and off the coast of Peru (Heyning and Perrin, 1994); Dusky dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus obscurus ), southern right whale dolphin ( Lissodelphis peronii ), Burmeister's porpoise ( Phocoena spinipinnis ), and long-finned pilot whale ( Globicephala melas ) occur near the Peruvian coast but are unlikely to occur in the present study area (Leatherwood et al. , 1991; Van Waerebeek et al. , 1991; Brownell and Clapham, 1999; Olson and Reilly, 2002).

Although unlikely, two of the six species of pinnipeds known to occur in the ETP could potentially occur in the proposed project area on rare occasions. These include the California and Galápagos sea lions, which have been documented off western Costa Rica (Acevedo-Gutierrez, 1994; Cubero-Parado and Rodríguez, 1999; Rodríguez-Herrera et al. , 2002; May-Collado, 2006, in press). The remaining four pinniped species known from the ETP, the Guadalupe fur seal ( Arctocephalus townsendi ), South American fur seal ( A. australis ), southern sea lion ( Otaria flavescens ), and Galápagos fur seal, are not expected to occur in the survey area because their known ranges are substantially farther north or south of the proposed seismic survey area (Reeves et al. , 2002).

Most cetacean research off the west coast of Central America has involved three of the most common, coastal resident species: The bottlenose and coastal pantropical spotted dolphin and humpback whale (May-Collado et al. , 2005). The remaining marine mammal populations in the region have not been studied in much detail. The most extensive regional distribution and abundance data that encompass the entire study area come primarily from multi-year vessel surveys conducted in the wider ETP by the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Table 5 of L-DEO's application summarizes the abundance, habitat, and conservation status of all marine mammal species considered likely to occur in the proposed survey area in the Pacific. Based on a compilation of data from 1979 to 2001, many cetaceans within the Pacific EEZ of Costa Rica occur in both oceanic and coastal waters. However, beaked, sperm, dwarf/pygmy sperm, and baleen whales (except for the humpback) occur predominantly in oceanic waters (May-Collado et al. , 2005). Bottlenose and pantropical spotted dolphins, as well as the humpback whale, tend to be coastal.

The proposed survey area in the Pacific is part of the “Central American Bight”, which extends from Guatemala to Ecuador. Costa Rican waters in particular are one of the most biologically productive regions of the world (Philbrick et al. , 2001; Rodríguez-Herrera et al. , 2002; May-Collado et al. , 2005; Ferguson et al. , 2006a). The characteristics that likely make this region so productive are linked to the thermal structure of the water column, including a shallow thermocline (see Fielder and Talley, 2006). Two regions within the ETP that are considered to be important to certain species of cetaceans include the Costa Rica Dome (CRD) and the countercurrent thermocline ridge at approximately 10° N. (see Au and Perryman, 1985; Reilly, 1990; Reilly and Thayer, 1990; Fielder, 2002; Ballance et al. , 2006).

At least five marine areas are considered ecologically important for different marine mammals off western Costa Rica, including areas near the proposed transect lines (Acevedo and Burkhart, 1998; Rodríguez-Fonseca, 2001; May-Collado et al. , 2005; Ferguson et al. , 2006a). From north to south, the five areas are as follows: Gulf of Papagayo; Punta Guiones to Cabo Blanco, southern Nicoya Peninsula; CRD; Quepos-Manuel Antonio National Park region; and Isla del Caño, Golfo Dulce, and Osa Peninsula. Marine mammal species inhabiting these five areas, as well as their seasonal use of the habitats, are described in the species accounts in L-DEO's application.

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

The effects of sounds from airguns might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbances, and at least in theory, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson et al. , 1995; Gordon et al. , 2004; Nowacek et al. , 2007). However, it is unlikely that there would be any cases of temporary or especially permanent hearing impairment or any significant non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Also, behavioral disturbance is expected to be limited to relatively short distances.

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

Obscuring of sounds of interest by interfering sounds, generally at similar frequencies, is known as masking. Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are few specific data of relevance. Some whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses. The airgun sounds are pulsed, with quiet periods between the pulses, and whale calls often can be heard between the seismic pulses (Richardson et al. , 1986; McDonald et al. , 1995; Greene et al. , 1999; Nieukirk et al. , 2004; Smultea et al. , 2004). Although there has been one report that sperm whales cease calling when exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship (Bowles et al. , 1994), a more recent study reports that sperm whales off northern Norway continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses (Madsen et al. , 2002). That has also been shown during recent work in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea (Smultea et al. , 2004; Tyack et al. , 2006). Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be negligible in the case of the small odontocetes given the intermittent nature of seismic pulses. Dolphins and porpoises commonly are heard calling while airguns are operating (Gordon et al. , 2004; Smultea et al. , 2004; Holst et al. , 2005a,b). Also, the sounds important to small odontocetes are predominantly at much higher frequencies than the airgun sounds. Masking effects, in general, are discussed further in Appendix C (d) of L-DEO's application.

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

The sound criteria used to estimate how many marine mammals might be disturbed to some biologically-important degree by a seismic program are based on behavioral observations during studies of several species. However, information is lacking for many species. Detailed studies have been done on humpback, gray, and bowhead whales and ringed seals. Less detailed data are available for some other species of baleen whales, sperm whales, small toothed whales, and sea otters.

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

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

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

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

Results from bowhead whales show that responsiveness of baleen whales to seismic surveys can be quite variable depending on the activity (migrating vs. feeding) of the whales. Bowhead whales migrating west across the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in autumn, in particular, are unusually responsive, with substantial avoidance occurring out to distances of 20-30 km (12.4-18.6 mi) from a medium-sized airgun source, where received sound levels were on the order of 130 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (Miller et al. , 1999; Richardson et al. , 1999). However, more recent research on bowhead whales (Miller et al. , 2005a) corroborates earlier evidence that, during the summer feeding season, bowheads are not as sensitive to seismic sources. In summer, bowheads typically begin to show avoidance reactions at a received level of about 160-170 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (Richardson et al. , 1986; Ljungblad et al. , 1988; Miller et al. , 1999). There are not data on reactions of wintering bowhead whales to seismic surveys. See Appendix C (e) of L-DEO's application for more information regarding bowhead whale reactions to airguns.

Malme et al. (1986, 1988) studied the responses of feeding Eastern Pacific gray whales to pulses from a single 100 in 3 airgun off St. Lawrence Island in the northern Bering Sea. Malme et al. (1986, 1988) estimated, based on small sample sizes, that 50 percent of feeding gray whales ceased feeding at an average received pressure level of 173 dB re 1 μPa on an (approximate) rms basis, and that 10 percent of feeding whales interrupted feeding at received levels of 163 dB. Those findings were generally consistent with the results of experiments conducted on larger numbers of gray whales that were migrating along the California coast and on observations of Western Pacific gray whales feeding off Sakhalin Island, Russia (Johnson, 2002).

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

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

Toothed Whales —Little systematic information is available about reactions of toothed whales to noise pulses. Few studies similar to the more extensive baleen whale/seismic pulse work summarized above have been reported for toothed whales. Controlled exposure experiments on sperm whales took place in the Gulf of Mexico in 2002 and 2003 (see Miller et al. , 2006; Tyack et al. , 2006), and there is an increasing amount of information about responses of various odontocetes to seismic surveys based on monitoring studies (Stone, 2003; Smultea et al. , 2004; Bain and Williams, 2006; Holst et al. , 2006; Moulton and Miller, in press).

Seismic operators sometimes see dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, but in general there seems to be a tendency for most delphinids to show some limited avoidance of seismic vessels operating large airgun systems. However, some dolphins seem to be attracted to the seismic vessel and floats, and some ride the bow wave of the seismic vessel even when large airgun arrays are firing. Nonetheless, there have been indications that small toothed whales sometimes tend to head away or to maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel, when a large array of airguns is operating than when it is silent (Goold, 1996a,b,c; Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2003). In most cases, the avoidance radii for delphinids appear to be small, on the order of 1 km (0.62 mi) or less. The beluga may be a species that (at least at times) shows long-distance avoidance of seismic vessels. Aerial surveys during seismic operations in the southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded much lower sighting rates of beluga whales within 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) of an active seismic vessel. These results were consistent with the low number of beluga sightings reported by observers aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting that some belugas might be avoiding the seismic operations at distances of 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) (Miller et al. , 2005a). No other odontocete is known to show avoidance at such distances.

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

Results for porpoises depend on species. Dall's porpoises seem relatively tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean and Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006), whereas the limited available data suggest that harbor porpoises show stronger avoidance (Stone, 2003; Bain and Williams, 2006). This apparent difference in responsiveness of these two porpoise species is consistent with their relative responsiveness to boat traffic in general (Richardson et al. , 1995).

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

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

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

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

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

Temporary or permanent hearing impairment is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very strong sounds, but there has been no specific documentation of this for marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses. Current NMFS policy regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-level sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive sounds of 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms), respectively. Those criteria have been used in defining the safety (shut-down) radii planned for the proposed seismic survey. The precautionary nature of these criteria is discussed in Appendix C (f) of L-DEO's application, including the fact that the minimum sound level necessary to cause permanent hearing impairment is higher, by a variable and generally unknown amount, than the level that induces barely-detectable temporary threshold shift (TTS) and the level associated with the onset of TTS is often considered to be a level below which there is no danger of permanent damage. NMFS is presently developing new noise exposure criteria for marine mammals that take account of the now-available scientific data on TTS, the expected offset between the TTS and permanent threshold shift (PTS) thresholds, differences in the acoustic frequencies to which different marine mammal groups are sensitive, and other relevant factors.

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

Non-auditory physical effects may also occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in mammals close to a strong sound source include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. It is possible that some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked whales) may be especially susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to strong pulsed sounds. However, as discussed below, there is no definitive evidence that any of these effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large arrays of airguns. It is especially unlikely that any effects of these types would occur during the present project given the brief duration of exposure of any given mammal and the planned monitoring and mitigation measures (see below). The following subsections discuss in somewhat more detail the possibilities of TTS, PTS, and non-auditory physical effects.

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

For toothed whales exposed to single short pulses, the TTS threshold appears to be, to a first approximation, a function of the energy content of the pulse (Finneran et al. , 2002, 2005). Given the available data, the received level of a single seismic pulse (with no frequency weighting) might need to be approximately 186 dB re 1 μPa 2 ·s (i.e., 186 dB SEL or approximately 221-226 dB pk-pk) in order to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several strong seismic pulses that each have received levels near 175-180 dB SEL might result in slight TTS in a small odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold is (to a first approximation) a function of the total received pulse energy. The distance from the Langseth's airguns at which the received energy level (per pulse) would be expected to be ≥175-180 dB SEL are the distances shown in the 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) column in Table 3 of L-DEO's application and Table 1 above (given that the rms level is approximately 10-15 dB higher than the SEL value for the same pulse). Seismic pulses with received energy levels ≥175-180 dB SEL (190 dB re 1 μPa (rms)) are expected to be restricted to radii no more than 140-200 m (459-656 ft) around the airguns. The specific radius depends on the number of airguns, the depth of the water, and the tow depth of the airgun array. For an odontocete closer to the surface, the maximum radius with ≥175-180 dB SEL or ≥190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) would be smaller.

For baleen whales, direct or indirect data do not exist on levels or properties of sound that are required to induce TTS. The frequencies to which baleen whales are most sensitive are 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. In any event, no cases of TTS are expected given three considerations: (1) The relatively low abundance of baleen whales expected in the planned study areas; (2) the strong likelihood that baleen whales would avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels high enough for there to be any possibility of TTS; and (3) the mitigation measures that are planned.

In pinnipeds, TTS thresholds associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of underwater sound have not been measured. Initial evidence from prolonged exposures suggested that some pinnipeds may incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations, on the order of 171 dB SEL (Kastak et al. , 1999, 2005; Ketten et al. , 2001). However, pinnipeds are not expected to occur in or near the planned study areas.

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

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

Permanent Threshold Shift —When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In some cases, there can be total or partial deafness, while in other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges.

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

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

Non-auditory Physiological Effects —Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. However, studies examining such effects are limited. If any such effects do occur, they would probably be limited to unusual situations when animals might be exposed at close range for unusually long periods. It is doubtful that any single marine mammal would be exposed to strong seismic sounds for time periods long enough to induce physiological stress.

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

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

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

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

There is no conclusive evidence of cetacean strandings as a result of exposure to seismic surveys. Speculation concerning a possible link between seismic surveys and strandings of humpback whales in Brazil (Engel et al. , 2004) was not well founded based on available data (IAGC, 2004; IWC, 2006). In September 2002, there was a stranding of two Cuvier's beaked whales in the Gulf of California, Mexico, when the L-DEO vessel Ewing was operating a 20-gun, 8,490-in 3 array in the general area. The link between the stranding and the seismic survey was inconclusive and not based on any physical evidence (Hogarth, 2002; Yoder, 2002). Yet, the preceding example plus the incidents involving beaked whale strandings near naval exercises suggests a need for caution in conducting seismic surveys in areas occupied by beaked whales. No injuries of beaked whales are anticipated during the proposed study because of the proposed monitoring and mitigating measures.

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

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

Behavioral reactions of free-ranging marine mammals to sonars and other sound sources appear to vary by species and circumstance. Observed reactions have included silencing and dispersal by sperm whales (Watkins et al. , 1985), increased vocalizations and no dispersal by pilot whales (Rendell and Gordon, 1999), and the previously-mentioned beachings by beaked whales. During exposure to a 21-25 kHz whale-finding sonar with a source level of 215 dB re 1 μPa, gray whales showed slight avoidance (approximately 200 m; 656 ft) behavior (Frankel, 2005). However, all of those observations are of limited relevance to the present situation. Pulse durations from those sonars were much longer than those of the MBES, and a given mammal would have received many pulses from the naval sonars. During L-DEO's operations, the individual pulses will be very short, and a given mammal would not receive many of the downward-directed pulses as the vessel passes by.

Captive bottlenose dolphins and a white whale exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to 1 s pulsed sounds at frequencies similar to those that will be emitted by the MBES used by L-DEO and to shorter broadband pulsed signals. Behavioral changes typically involved what appeared to be deliberate attempts to avoid the sound exposure (Schlundt et al. , 2000; Finneran et al. , 2002; Finneran and Schlundt, 2004). The relevance of those data to free-ranging odontocetes is uncertain, and in any case, the test sounds were quite different in either duration or bandwidth as compared with those from an MBES.

We are not aware of any data on the reactions of pinnipeds to sonar or echosounder sounds at frequencies similar to the 12 kHz frequency of the Langseth's MBES. Based on observed pinniped responses to other types of pulsed sounds, and the likely brevity of exposure to the MBES sounds, pinniped reactions are expected to be limited to startle or otherwise brief responses of no lasting consequence to the animals. Also, few if any pinnipeds will be encountered during this project.

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

An SBP will be operated from the source vessel during the planned study. Sounds from the SBP are very short pulses, occurring for 1, 2, or 4 ms once every second. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by the SBP is at mid frequencies, centered at 3.5 kHz. The beamwidth is approximately 30° and is directed downward.

Sound levels have not been measured directly for the SBP used by the Langseth , but Burgess and Lawson (2000) measured sounds propagating more or less horizontally from a similar unit with similar source output (205 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m). The 160 and 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) radii, in the horizontal direction, were estimated to be, respectively, near 20 m (66 ft) and 8 m (26 ft) from the source, as measured in 13 m (42.7 ft) water depth. The corresponding distances for an animal in the beam below the transducer would be greater, on the order of 180 m (590.6 ft) and 18 m (59 ft), assuming spherical spreading.

The SBP on the Langseth has a stated maximum source level of 204 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. Thus, the received level would be expected to decrease to 160 and 180 dB about 160 m (525 ft) and 16 m (52.5 ft) below the transducer, respectively, again assuming spherical spreading. Corresponding distances in the horizontal plane would be lower, given the directionality of this source (30° beam width) and the measurements of Burgess and Lawson (2000).

Kremser et al. (2005) noted that the probability of a cetacean swimming through the area of exposure when the SBP emits a pulse is small, and if the animal was in the area, it would have to pass the transducer at close range in order to be subjected to sound levels that could cause TTS.

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

Marine mammal behavioral reactions to other pulsed sound sources are discussed above, and responses to the SBP are likely to be similar to those for other pulsed sources if received at the same levels. The pulsed signals from the SBP are somewhat weaker than those from the MBES. Therefore, behavioral responses are not expected unless marine mammals are very close to the source (e.g., about 160 m, 525 ft, below the vessel or a lesser distance to the side).

Source levels of the SBP are much lower than those of the airguns and the MBES, which are discussed above. Sounds from the SBP are estimated to decrease to 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) at 8 m (26 ft) horizontally from the source (Burgess and Lawson, 2000) and at approximately 18 m (59 ft) downward from the source. Furthermore, received levels of pulsed sounds that are necessary to cause temporary or especially permanent hearing impairment in marine mammals appear to be higher than 180 dB (see earlier). Thus, it is unlikely that the SBP produces pulse levels strong enough to cause hearing impairment or other physical injuries even in an animal that is (briefly) in a position near the source.

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

All anticipated takes would be “takes by harassment”, involving temporary changes in behavior. The proposed mitigation measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious takes. (However, as noted earlier, there is no specific information demonstrating that injurious “takes” would occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation measures.) The sections below describe methods to estimate “take by harassment”, and present estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that might be affected during the proposed Central American SubFac seismic program. The estimates of “take by harassment” are based on consideration of the number of marine mammals that might be disturbed appreciably by approximately 1,328 km of seismic surveys in the western Caribbean and 2,652 km in the eastern Pacific. The main sources of distributional and numerical data used in deriving the estimates are described below.

The anticipated radii of influence of the MBES and the SBP are less than those for the airgun array. It is assumed that, during simultaneous operations of the airgun array and echosounders, marine mammals close enough to be affected by the echosounders would already be affected by the airguns. However, whether or not the airguns are operating simultaneously with the echosounders, marine mammals are expected to exhibit no more than short-term and inconsequential responses to the echosounders given their characteristics (e.g., narrow downward-directed beam) and other considerations described above. NMFS believes that such reactions are not considered to constitute “taking.” Therefore, no additional allowance is included for animals that might be affected by sound sources other than airguns.

Extensive marine mammal surveys have been conducted in the ETP over numerous years (e.g., Polacheck, 1987; Wade and Gerrodette, 1993; Kinsey et al. , 1999, 2000, 2001; Ferguson and Barlow, 2001; Smultea and Holst, 2003; Jackson et al. , 2004; Holst et al. , 2005a; May-Collado et al. , 2005). Therefore, for the Pacific portion of the proposed seismic survey, marine mammal density data were readily available. The most comprehensive data available for the region encompassing the proposed survey area are from Ferguson and Barlow (2001) and Holst et al. (2005a). The Ferguson and Barlow (2001) surveys took place from late July to early December across a large area of the ETP. For density estimates in this project, L-DEO only used data from areas in or adjacent to the proposed study location. These areas included ten 5° x 5° survey blocks from the Ferguson and Barlow (2001) surveys: 118, 119, 137, 138, 139, 140, 158, 159, 160, and 161. These blocks included survey effort in all water depths, but primarily deeper than 100 m (328 ft). Similarly, survey data from all water depths were included from Holst et al. (2005a), although most effort (more than 93 percent) occurred in water more than 100 m (328 ft) deep. Survey data collected by Holst et al. (2005a) were the result of a marine mammal monitoring and mitigation program during L-DEO's seismic survey off Costa Rica and Nicaragua in November-December, 2004. Only data collected during non-seismic periods were combined with data from Ferguson and Barlow (2001) to calculate mean densities for the proposed study area. However, data collected by Holst et al. (2005a) during seismic and non-seismic periods were used to estimate allowances for sightings identified to species.

The proposed survey off the Pacific coast of Central America is presently scheduled to occur in the February-April period. Therefore, the representativeness of the data collected by Holst et al. (2005a) in November-December and especially by Ferguson and Barlow (2001) in July-December is uncertain. For some species, the densities derived from past surveys may not be representative of the densities that will be encountered during the proposed seismic study. As an example of potential uncertainty of the data, the number of cetaceans sighted during L-DEO's 2003 Hess Deep seismic operations (see Smultea and Holst, 2003) was considerably lower (only one sighting) than expected based on the Ferguson and Barlow (2001) data. The Hess Deep Survey occurred in mid-July and was apparently not well represented by the Ferguson and Barlow (2001) data collected largely during the autumn in other years. Similarly, the densities calculated by Holst et al. (2005a) were generally lower for dolphins and greater for humpbacks compared with those determined by Ferguson and Barlow (2001).

Despite the above caveats, the Ferguson and Barlow (2001) and Holst et al. (2005a) data still represent the best available data for estimating numbers of marine mammals potentially exposed to the proposed seismic sounds. Table 6 of L-DEO's application shows the densities that were derived from Ferguson and Barlow (2001) and Holst et al. (2005a), which were used to estimate numbers of marine mammals potentially exposed. The densities reported by Ferguson and Barlow (2001) and Holst et al. (2005a) were corrected for both detectability [f(0)] and availability [g(0)] biases, and therefore, are relatively unbiased. To provide some allowances for uncertainties in these data, “best estimates” and “maximum estimates” of the numbers potentially affected have been derived (see Table 7 in the application).

For the Caribbean portion of the Central American SubFac program, we were unable to find published data on marine mammal densities in or immediately adjacent to the proposed seismic survey area. The closest quantitative surveys were conducted in the southeast Caribbean (Swartz and Burks, 2000; Swartz et al. , 2001; Smultea et al. , 2004). Most of the survey effort by Swartz and Burks (2000) and Swartz et al. (2001) took place during March and April near the islands on the east side of the Caribbean Sea and near the north and northeast coasts of Venezuela in water depths <1,000 m. Survey data from Smultea et al. (2004) were collected north of Venezuela during April-June in association with a previous L-DEO seismic survey. The proposed survey is scheduled to occur sometime in February to early April in the western Caribbean Sea, a location and time of year in which the species densities are likely different from those during the above-mentioned surveys in the southeast Caribbean. Therefore, the representativeness of the data is uncertain, but they are the best available at this time.

The data from Smultea et al. (2004) were deemed to be more representative of the proposed study area than those from Swartz and Burks (2000) and Swartz et al. (2001) because Smultea et al. (2004) reported separate densities for different water depth categories, whereas the other surveys did not.

However, there was no shallow-water effort during surveys by Smultea et al. (2004). Densities from a survey off Yucatán, Mexico (Holst et al. , 2005b), were used for shallow water, as those data were deemed more appropriate than densities for deeper waters from the southeast Caribbean surveys. Therefore, for the Central American SubFac survey, mean densities for intermediate and deep water are those for non-seismic periods from Smultea et al. (2004), and for shallow water, densities for non-seismic periods from Holst et al. (2005b) were used (see Table 8 in L-DEO's application). Densities were available for striped, Atlantic spotted, and bottlenose dolphins, as well as for short-finned pilot whales, and were corrected for detectability [f(0)] and availability [g(0)] biases and for unidentified sightings by the original authors. To allow for the possibility of encountering small numbers of individuals of other species in the survey area, even though they were not recorded during previous surveys, L-DEO adjusted the ‘maximum estimates’ based on mean group size, if available (e.g., Swartz and Burks, 2000).

The number of different individuals that may be exposed to airgun sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) on one or more occasions can be estimated by considering the total marine area that would be within the 160-dB radius around the operating airgun array on at least one occasion. Most of the proposed lines (9 of 11) will be surveyed twice, although it is unknown how much time will pass between the first and second transit along each line. Therefore, some of the same individuals may be approached by the operating airguns and come within the 160-dB distance on two occasions. However, this also means that some different marine mammals could occur in the area during the second pass. Thus, the best estimates in this section are based on a single pass of all survey lines (including a 15 percent contingency for airgun operations during turns), and maximum estimates are based on maximum estimates (i.e., for the Pacific) or on at least two times the best estimate. Table 8 in L-DEO's application shows the best and maximum estimates of the number of marine mammals that could potentially be affected during the Caribbean portion of the seismic survey.

The potential number of different individuals that might be exposed to received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) was calculated separately for the Pacific and Caribbean study areas. For the Caribbean portion of the Central American SubFac survey, the number of potentially-affected individuals was calculated for each of three water depth categories (shallow, <100 m or <328 ft; intermediate-depth, 100-1,000 m or 328-3,280 ft; and deep, >1,000 m or 3,280 ft). However, for the Pacific area, no distinction was made between different water depth categories for several reasons: (1) Less than five percent of the proposed survey in the Pacific will take place in water <100 m (328 ft) deep; (2) most of the effort (>93 percent) during surveys by Holst et al. (2005a) took place in waters deeper than 100 m (328 ft); and (3) Ferguson and Barlow (2001) did not present depth-specific densities.

The number of different individuals potentially exposed to received levels *160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) was calculated by multiplying:

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

The anticipated minimum area to be ensonified to that level during airgun operations in each water depth category. The 160-dB re 1 μPa (rms) distances were as predicted by L-DEO's model, with adjustments based on Tolstoy et al. (2004a,b) for shallow and intermediate-depth water.

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

Applying the approach described above, approximately 19,193 km 2 would be within the 160-dB isopleth on one or more occasions during the Pacific portion of the survey, and 12,643 km 2 would be ensonified on one or more occasions during the Caribbean portion of the survey. However, this approach does not allow for turnover in the mammal populations in the study area during the course of the studies. This might somewhat underestimate actual numbers of individuals exposed, although the conservative distances used to calculate the area may offset the underestimate. In addition, the approach assumes that no cetaceans will move away or toward the trackline as the Langseth approaches in response to increasing sound levels prior to the time the levels reach 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Another way of interpreting the estimates that follow is that they represent the number of individuals that are expected (in the absence of a seismic program) to occur in the waters that will be exposed to *160 dB re 1 μPa (rms).

The ‘best estimate’ of the number of individual marine mammals that might be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the Pacific portion of the proposed survey is 15,572 (Table 7 in L-DEO's application). That total includes 79 endangered whales (71 sperm, 4 humpback, and 4 blue whales), 156 beaked whales, and 21 Bryde's whale (Table 7 in the application). Striped, short-beaked common, and pantropical spotted dolphins are expected to be the most common species in the Pacific part of the study area. The best estimates for those species are 4,005, 3,931, and 2,952, respectively (Table 7). Estimates for other species are lower (Table 7). The ‘maximum estimate’ for the Pacific is 52,438 individual marine mammals. Most of these would be dolphins (Table 7). The maximum estimate of 101 humpback whales is likely a more realistic estimate of the number of individuals that might be exposed to seismic sound levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the Pacific survey, as these estimates are based on density data from July-December and not from the peak breeding/calving period in January-March. The numbers for which take authorization is requested, given in the far right column in Table 7 of L-DEO's application and Table 2 here, are the maximum estimates. Since the take estimates proposed in this document fall largely within 3 percent (all but dwarf sperm (7.64 percent) and humpback (7.26 percent) whales) of the numbers estimated to be present during a localized survey in the Pacific Ocean off the coasts of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and the species range far beyond the Pacific Ocean (i.e., the abundance of the species is notably larger), NMFS believes that the estimated take numbers for these species are small relative both to the worldwide abundance of these species and to numbers taken in other activities that have been authorized for incidental take of these species.

The ‘best estimate’ of the number of individual marine mammals that might be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the Caribbean portion of the proposed survey is 461 (Table 8 in L-DEO's application). That total includes five endangered whales (three sperm, one humpback, and one fin whale), two beaked whales, and two Bryde's whale (Table 8 in the application). Atlantic spotted and bottlenose dolphins are expected to be the most common species in the Caribbean part of the study area; the best estimates for those species are 220 and 194, respectively (Table 8). Estimates for other species are lower (Table 8). The maximum estimate for the Caribbean is 998 individual marine mammals. The numbers for which take authorization is requested, given in the far right column in Table 8 of L-DEO's application and Table 2 here, are the maximum estimates. Since the take estimates proposed in this document are less than 1 percent (all but killer (7.52 percent) and Bryde's (8.57 percent) whales) of the numbers estimated to be present during a localized survey in the Caribbean Sea off the coasts of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and the species range far beyond the Caribbean (i.e., the abundance of the species is notably larger), NMFS believes that the estimated take numbers for these species are small relative both to the worldwide abundance of these species and to numbers taken in other activities that have been authorized for incidental take of these species.

No pinnipeds are expected to be encountered in the Caribbean, and the likelihood of encountering sea lions or other pinnipeds in the Pacific study area is also very low. No take of any pinniped species is requested.

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

One of the reasons for the adoption of airguns as the standard energy source for marine seismic surveys was that, unlike explosives, they have not been associated with large-scale fish kills. However, the existing body of information relating to the impacts of seismic surveys on marine fish (see Appendix D of L-DEO's application) and invertebrate species (Appendix E of the application) is very limited. The various types of potential effects of exposure to seismic on fish and invertebrates can be considered in three categories: (1) Pathological, (2) physiological, and (3) behavioral. Pathological effects include lethal and sub-lethal damage to the animals, physiological effects include temporary primary and secondary stress responses, and behavioral effects refer to changes in exhibited behavior of the fish and invertebrates. The three categories are interrelated in complex ways. For example, it is possible that certain physiological and behavioral changes could potentially lead to the ultimate pathological effect on individual animals (i.e., mortality).

Available information on the impacts of seismic surveys on marine fish and invertebrates is from studies of individuals or portions of a population; there have been no studies conducted at the population level. 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 and invertebrates problematic because ultimately, the most important aspect of potential impacts relates to how exposure to seismic survey sound affects marine fish and invertebrate populations and their viability, including their availability to fisheries.

The following sections provide an overview of the information that exists on the effects of exposure to seismic and other anthropogenic sounds on fish and invertebrates. The information comprises results from scientific studies of varying degrees of soundness and some anecdotal information.

Pathological Effects —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 and invertebrates 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; Hassel et al. , 2003; Popper et al. , 2005).

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 L-DEO's application). For a given sound to result in hearing loss, the sound must exceed, by some specific amount, the hearing threshold of the fish for that sound (Popper et al. , 2005). The consequences of temporary or permanent hearing loss in individual fish on a fish population is unknown; however, it likely depends on the number of individuals affected and whether critical behaviors involving sound (e.g., predator avoidance, prey capture, orientation and navigation, reproduction, etc.) are adversely affected.

Little is known about the mechanisms and characteristics of damage to fish that may be inflicted by exposure to seismic survey sounds. Few data have been presented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There are two valid papers with proper experimental methods, controls, and careful pathological investigation implicating sounds produced by actual seismic survey airguns with adverse anatomical effects. One such study indicated anatomical damage and the second indicated TTS in fish hearing. McCauley et al. (2003) found that exposure to airgun sound caused observable anatomical damage to the auditory maculae of “pink snapper” ( Pagrus auratus ). This damage in the ears had not been repaired in fish sacrificed and examined almost two months after exposure. On the other hand, Popper et al. (2005) documented only TTS (as determined by auditory brainstem response) in two of three fishes from the Mackenzie River Delta. This study found that broad whitefish ( Coreogonus nasus ) that received a sound exposure level of 177 dB re 1 μPa 2. s showed no hearing loss. During both studies, the repetitive exposure to sound was greater than would have occurred during a typical seismic survey. However, the substantial low-frequency energy produced by the airgun arrays [less than approximately 400 Hz in the study by McCauley et al. (2003) and less than approximately 200 Hz in Popper et al. (2005)] likely did not propagate to the fish because the water in the study areas was very shallow (approximately 9 m, 29.5 ft, in the former case and <2 m, 6.6 ft, in the latter). Water depth sets a lower limit on the lowest sound frequency that will propagate (the “cutoff frequency”) at about one-quarter wavelength (Urick, 1983; Rogers and Cox, 1988). Except for these two studies, at least with airgun-generated sound treatments, most contributions rely on rather subjective assays such as fish “alarm” or “startle response” or changes in catch rates by fishers. These observations are important in that they attempt to use the levels of exposures that are likely to be encountered by most free-ranging fish in actual survey areas. However, the associated sound stimuli are often poorly described, and the biological assays are varied (Hastings and Popper, 2005).

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

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

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

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

The proposed seismic program for 2008 is predicted to have negligible to low physical effects on the various life stages of fish and invertebrates for its short duration (approximately 25 days each in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea) and approximately 2,149-km of unique survey lines extent. Therefore, physical effects of the proposed program on fish and invertebrates would not be significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vessel-based marine mammal visual observers (MMVOs) will be based aboard the seismic source vessel and will watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun operations and during start-ups of airguns at night. MMVOs will also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of airgun operations after an extended shutdown of the airguns. When feasible, MMVOs will also make observations during daytime periods when the seismic system is not operating for comparison of animal abundance and behavior. Based on MMVO observations, airguns will be powered down, or if necessary, shut down completely (see below), when marine mammals are detected within or about to enter a designated EZ (safety radius). The MMVOs will continue to maintain watch to determine when the animal(s) are outside the EZ, and airgun operations will not resume until the animal has left that zone. The EZ is a region in which a possibility exists of adverse effects on animal hearing or other physical effects.

During seismic operations off Central America, at least three observers will be based aboard the Langseth . MMVOs will be appointed by L-DEO with NMFS concurrence. At least one MMVO, and when practical two, will monitor the EZ for marine mammals during daytime operations and nighttime startups of the airguns. MMVO(s) will be on duty in shifts of duration no longer than 4 hours. The crew will also be instructed to assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements (if practical).

The Langseth is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations. When stationed on the observation platform, the eye level will be approximately 17.8 m (58.4 ft) above sea level, and the observer will have a good view around the entire vessel. During daytime, the MMVO(s) will scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7×50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25×150), and with the naked eye. During darkness, night vision devices will be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular-image intensifier or equivalent). Laser rangefinding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation.

PAM will take place to complement the visual monitoring program. Visual monitoring typically is not effective during periods of bad weather or at night, and even with good visibility, is unable to detect marine mammals when they are below the surface or beyond visual range. Acoustic monitoring can be used in addition to visual observations to improve detection, identification, localization, and tracking of cetaceans. It is only useful when marine mammals call, but it can be effective either by day or by night and does not depend on good visibility. The acoustic monitoring will serve to alert visual observers (if on duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are detected. It will be monitored in real time so visual observers can be advised when cetaceans are detected. When bearings (primary and mirror-image) to calling cetacean(s) are determined, the bearings will be relayed to the visual observer to help him/her sight the calling animal(s).

SEAMAP (Houston, Texas) will be used as the primary acoustic monitoring system. This system was also used during several previous L-DEO seismic cruises (e.g., Smultea et al. , 2004, 2005; Holst et al. , 2005a,b). The PAM system consists of hardware ( i.e. , hydrophones) and software. The “wet end” of the SEAMAP system consists of a low-noise, towed hydrophone array that is connected to the vessel by a “hairy” faired cable. The array will be deployed from a winch located on the back deck. A deck cable will connect form the winch to the main computer lab where the acoustic station and signal conditioning and processing system will be located. The lead-in from the hydrophone array is approximately 400 m (1,312 ft) long, and the active part of the hydrophone array is approximately 56 m (184 ft) long. The hydrophone array is typically towed at depths less than 20 m (66 ft).

While the Langseth is in the seismic survey area, the towed hydrophone array will be monitored 24 hours per day while at the survey area during airgun operations and also during most periods when the Langseth is underway with the airguns not operating. One marine mammal observer (MMO) will monitor the acoustic detection system at any one time, by listening to the signals from two channels via headphones and/or speakers and watching the real time spectrographic display for frequency ranges produced by cetaceans. MMOs monitoring the acoustical data will be on shift for 1-6 hours. All MMOs are expected to rotate through the PAM position, although the most experienced with acoustics will be on PAM duty more frequently.

When a cetacean vocalization is detected, the acoustic MMO will, if visual observations are in progress, contact the MMVO immediately to alert him/her to the presence of the cetacean(s), if they have not already been seen and to allow power down or shutdown to be initiated, if required. The information regarding the call will be entered into a database. The data to be entered include an acoustic encounter identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional information was recorded, position and water depth when first detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, strength of signal, etc.), and any other notable information. The acoustic detection can also be recorded for further analysis.

MMVOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document any apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate the numbers of mammals potentially “taken” by harassment. They will also provide information needed to order a power down or shutdown of airguns when marine mammals are within or near the EZ. 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 (shooting or not), sea state, visibility, cloud cover, 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 mammal observations, as well as information regarding airgun power down and shutdown, will be recorded in a standardized format. Data accuracy will be verified by the MMVOs 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. MMVO observations will provide the following information:

(1) The basis for decisions about powering down or shutting down airgun arrays.

(2) Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially ‘taken by harassment’, 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) Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity.

Mitigation and monitoring measures proposed to be implemented for the proposed seismic survey have been developed and refined during previous L-DEO seismic studies and associated environmental assessments (EAs), IHA applications, and IHAs. The mitigation and monitoring measures described herein represent a combination of the procedures required by past IHAs for other similar projects and on recommended best practices in Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. (1998), and Weir and Dolman (2007). The measures are described in detail below.

The number of individual animals expected to be approached closely during the proposed activity will be small in relation to regional and worldwide population sizes. With the proposed monitoring and mitigation provisions, any effects on individuals are expected to be limited to behavioral disturbance and will have only negligible impacts on the species and stocks.

Mitigation measures that will be adopted include: (1) Speed or course alteration, provided that doing so will not compromise operational safety requirements; (2) power-down procedures; (3) shutdown procedures; (4) ramp-up procedures; and (5) minimizing approaches to slopes and submarine canyons, if possible, because of sensitivity of beaked whales.

Speed or Course Alteration —If a marine mammal is detected outside the EZ but is likely to enter it based on relative movement of the vessel and the animal, then if safety and scientific objectives allow, the vessel speed and/or course will be adjusted to minimize the likelihood of the animal entering the EZ. Major course and speed adjustments are often impractical when towing long seismic streamers and large source arrays, thus for surveys involving large sources, alternative mitigation measures are required.

Power-down Procedures —A power-down involves reducing the number of operating airguns, typically to a single airgun (e.g., 40 in 3 ), to minimize the EZ, so that marine mammals are no longer in or about to enter this zone. A power-down of the airgun array to a reduced number of operating airguns may also occur when the vessel is moving from one seismic line to another. The continued operation of at least one airgun is intended to alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel in the area.

If a marine mammal is detected outside the EZ but is likely to enter it, and if the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed, the airguns will be powered down to a single airgun before the animal is within the EZ. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the EZ when first detected, the airguns will be powered down immediately. If a marine mammal is detected within or near the smaller EZ around that single airgun (see Table 1 of L-DEO's application and Table 1 above), all airguns will be shutdown (see next subsection).

Following a power down, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal is outside the EZ for the full array. The animal will be considered to have cleared the EZ if it:

(1) Is visually observed to have left the EZ; or

(2) Has not been seen within the EZ for 15 minutes in the case of small odontocetes and pinnipeds; or

(3) Has not been seen within the EZ for 30 minutes in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales.

Following a power-down and subsequent animal departure as above, the airgun array will resume operations following ramp-up procedures described below.

Shutdown Procedures —The operating airgun(s) will be shutdown if a marine mammal is detected within the EZ of a single 40 in 3 airgun while the airgun array is at full volume or during a power down. Airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the EZ or until the MMVO is confident that the animal has left the vicinity of the vessel. Criteria for judging that the animal has cleared the EZ will be as describing in the preceding subsection.

Ramp-up Procedures —A ramp-up procedure will be followed when the airgun array begins operating after a specified-duration period without airgun operations or when a power down has exceeded that period. It is proposed that, for the present cruise, this period would be approximately 8 minutes. This period is based on the modeled 180-dB radius for the 36-airgun array (see Table 3 of L-DEO's application and Table 1 here) in relation to the planned speed of the Langseth while shooting in deep water. Similar periods (approximately 8-10 minutes) were used during previous L-DEO surveys.

Ramp-up will begin with the smallest airgun in the array (40 in 3 ). Airguns will be added in a sequence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5-minute period over a total duration of approximately 20-25 minutes. During ramp-up, the MMVOs will monitor the EZ, and if marine mammals are sighted, a course/speed change, power down, or shutdown will be implemented as though the full array were operational.

Initiation of ramp-up procedures from shutdown requires that the full EZ must be visible by the MMVOs, whether conducted in daytime or nighttime. This requirement likely will preclude start ups at night or in thick fog because the outer part of the EZ for that array will not be visible during those conditions. Ramp-up is allowed from a power down under reduced visibility conditions only if at least one airgun (e.g., 40 in 3 or similar) has operated continuously throughout the survey without interruption, on the assumption that marine mammals will be alerted to the approaching seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and could move away if they choose. Ramp-up of the airguns will not be initiated if a marine mammal is sighted within or near the applicable EZ during the day or close to the vessel at night.

Minimize Approach to Slopes and Submarine Canyons —Although sensitivity of beaked whales to airguns is not known, they appear to be sensitive to other sound sources (e.g., mid-frequency sonar). Beaked whales tend to concentrate in continental slope areas and in areas where there are submarine canyons. There are no submarine canyons within or near the study area. Three of the transect lines are on the continental slope, which accounts for only a small portion of the proposed study area (207 km; 128.6 mi) and a minimal amount of time (30 hours).

A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), and estimates of the amount and nature of potential “take” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways.

Under section 7 of the ESA, NSF has begun consultation with the NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division on this proposed seismic survey. NMFS will also consult on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of the IHA.

NSF prepared an Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth off Central America, January-March 2008. NMFS will either adopt NSF's EA or conduct a separate NEPA analysis, as necessary, prior to making a determination of the issuance of the IHA.

NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of conducting the seismic survey in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea off Central America may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior (Level B Harassment) of small numbers of 26 species of marine mammals. Further, this activity is expected to result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks. The provision requiring that the activity not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected species or stock for subsistence uses does not apply for this proposed action.

For reasons stated previously in this document, this determination is supported by: (1) The likelihood that, given sufficient notice through relatively slow ship speed, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious; (2) the fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 40 m (131 ft) in deep water, 60 m (197 ft) at intermediate depths, or 296 m (971 ft) in shallow water when a single airgun is in use from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (180 dB) believed to have even a minimal chance of causing TTS; (3) the fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 950 m (0.6 mi) in deep water, 1,425 m (0.9 mi) at intermediate depths, and 3,694 m (2.3 mi) in shallow water when the full array is in use at a 9 m (29.5 ft) tow depth from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (180 dB) believed to have even a minimal chance of causing TTS; (4) the fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 1,120 m (0.7 mi) in deep water, 1,680 m (1 mi) at intermediate depths, and 4,356 (2.7 mi) in shallow water when the full array is in use at a 12 m (39 ft) tow depth from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (180 dB) believed to have even a minimal chance of causing TTS; and (5) the likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high at that short distance from the vessel. As a result, no take by injury or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is very low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.

While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small, less than a few percent of any of the estimated population sizes, and has been mitigated to the lowest level practicable through incorporation of the measures mentioned previously in this document.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to L-DEO for conducting a marine geophysical survey in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea off Central America from February-April, 2008, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

The Shrimp AP will receive reports from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the status and health of the shrimp stocks in 2006, as well as a report on the biological and economic aspects of the 2007 Cooperative Shrimp Closure with the state of Texas. The Shrimp AP may make recommendations for a cooperative closure with Texas for 2008. The Shrimp AP will also receive a presentation of the current number of moratorium permits that have been issued by the NMFS and preliminary estimates of offshore shrimping effort in 2007. Finally, the Shrimp AP may discuss and make recommendations regarding a Generic Offshore Aquaculture Amendment being developed by the Council.

The Shrimp AP consists principally of commercial shrimp fishermen, dealers, and association representatives.

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

Copies of the agenda can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630.

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

The Joint Standing and Special Reef Fish SSC will review a Generic Amendment for Offshore Aquaculture that contains provisions for allowing and regulating potential offshore aquaculture operations in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico. The SSCs will also review Amendment 30B to the Reef Fish FMP that contains provisions for potential additional regulations on gag and potentially reducing regulations on red grouper in the EEZ Gulf of Mexico. Finally, the SSCs may also discuss potential adjustments to the deep-water grouper and tilefish total allowable catch levels (TACs).

Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the SSCs for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the SSCs will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take 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 Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

The Spiny Lobster AP will review and comment on a scoping document to be presented at a public hearing in Islamorada, FL on January 24, 2008. This scoping hearing solicits comments from the public on regulatory activities that could be taken to apply a minimum size limit to spiny lobster imported from Central and South American nations. Such a minimum size limit would rectify the problems created by the occurrence in the U.S. market place of imported lobster that are much smaller than the current U.S. size limit. This creates a significant U.S. enforcement problem and adversely affects the lobster stocks affected.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the AP workgroup for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during the meeting. Actions will be restricted to the issue specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the APs workgroup's intent to take action to address the emergency.

The conference call will begin at 10 a.m. EST and conclude no later than 11 a.m. EST. Listening stations are available at the following locations:

•The Gulf Council office (see ADDRESSES ), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) offices as follows:

• Miami, FL , 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33149; telephone: (305) 361-4259,

• Marathon, FL , 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 119, Marathon, FL 33050; telephone: (305) 289-2330.

The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

The original permit was issued on February 3, 2003 (68 FR 6419), with an expiration date of January 1, 2008. The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The amendment extends the duration of the permit by 12 months beyond that established in the original permit. No other terms or conditions of the permit were changed.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

The Commission is deleting five systems of records: CPSC-16, Equal Employment Opportunity Counseling Files; CPSC-18, Procurement Integrity Files; CPSC-19, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction Tracking System; CPSC-21, Contractor Personnel Security System File; and CPSC-22, Management Information System. CPSC-16, Equal Employment Opportunity Counseling Files, is now covered by a government-wide system of records notice, EEOC/GOVT-1 published by the Office of Equal Opportunity, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. CPSC-18, Procurement Integrity Files no longer exists and is being deleted. CPSC-19, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction Tracking System contains individuals' names but does not meet the definition of a “system of records” for purposes of the Privacy Act. CPSC-22, Management Information System, is no longer maintained as a system of records although MIS codes are used in a system maintained by the Department of Interior's National Business Center and covered under their system of records notice. CPSC-21, Contractor Personnel Security System File information is merged with CPSC-20, Personnel Security File and no longer exists as a separate system of records.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission is also announcing a new system of records, CPSC-23, Equal Employment Opportunity Disability/Accommodation Files. This system will be used to maintain records of employees who initiate reasonable accommodation requests under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, and Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101.

The Congress and the Office of Management and Budget have been notified of the new system of records.

The Defense Logistics Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The Defense Logistics Agency proposes to delete eight systems of records notices from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletions are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of new or altered systems reports.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the record systems being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the record systems being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

1. Authorization: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District, Regulatory Branch is considering an application from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 700 South Eisenhower Boulevard, P.O. Box 67676, Harrisburg, PA 17106-7676 under section 404 of the Clean Water Act to construct the Proposed Action. The primary Federal concern is the discharge of fill materials (including permanent inundation) within waters of the United States, and potential impacts on the human environment from such activities. The Corps' decision will be to either issue or deny a Department of the Army permit for the Proposed Action.

The DEIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Executive Order 11990; and with other appropriate federal laws and regulations, policies, and procedures of the Corps for compliance with those regulations.

2. Scoping Process: The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has held a series of Public Plans Displays and Public Meetings in the project area during the past several years, including a series of three meetings in August 2005 to present the alternatives developed in detail in the DEIS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on October 23, 2007 (FR Doc. E7-20812).

3. Public Hearing . A formal public hearing to receive comments on the DEIS will be held by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission on Thursday, January 24, 2008. The location and time for the public hearing is as follows:

• Canon-McMillan Senior High School, Elm Street Extension, Canonsburg, PA 15317. An open house plans presentation will be conducted from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. The formal presentation will be conducted at 6 p.m.

The public hearing will be announced in the local news media, and separate notice will also be sent to all parties on the project mailing list and to property owners adjacent to the Recommended Preferred Alternative. Participation by all interested individuals, groups or agencies is encouraged.

The public review period will conclude on February 8, 2008, more than 45 days after publication of this notice. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission will consider concerns expressed on the DEIS, and such issues will be incorporated into the Final EIS as appropriate. Comments, suggestions, and requests to be placed on the mailing list for announcements and for the Final EIS, should also be sent to Mr. Hans or Mr. Willis.

4. Availability of the Draft EIS: The Draft EIS and appendices are available for review and downloading from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's project Web site at the following address: http://www.paturnpike.com/monfaySB/. Copies of the DEIS are available for public review at local municipal offices and public libraries in the project area. Copies of the technical support data and all documents referenced in the DEIS are available for public review by appointment at the Pittsburgh office of SAI Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1350 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. Please contact Mr. John Weres at (412) 392-8750 to set up an appointment. Please note that only qualified individuals will be allowed to review the confidential cultural resources appendices. Additional information on the project and availability of the DEIS can also be found in the Corps' Public notice at the following link: http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/or/or-f/07-59.pdf.

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

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: DC School Choice Incentive Program.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Individuals or household; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: The DC School Choice Incentive Program, authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, awarded a grant to the Washington Scholarship Fund that will administer scholarships to students who reside in the District of Columbia and come from households whose incomes do not exceed 185% of the poverty line. Priority is given to students who are currently attending schools in need of improvement, as defined by Title I. To assist in the student selection and assignment process, the information to be collected will be used to determine the eligibility of those students who are interested in the available scholarships. Also, since the authorizing statute requires an evaluation we are proposing to collect certain family demographic information because they are important predictors of school success. Finally, we are asking to collect information about parental participation and satisfaction because these are key topics that the statute requires the evaluation to address.

This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3526. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 31, 2007 (72 FR 41749), 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 No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0026, 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: National Water Quality Inventory Reports (Renewal).

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1560.08, OMB Control No. 2040-0071.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2007. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed 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: Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify and rank waters which cannot meet water quality standards (WQS) following the implementation of technology-based controls. Under Section 303(d), States are also required to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for listed waters not meeting standards as a result of pollutant discharges. In developing the Section 303(d) lists, States are required to consider various sources of water-quality related data and information, including the Section 305(b) State water quality reports. The State Section 305(b) reports contain information on the extent of water quality degradation, the pollutants and sources affecting water quality, and State progress in controlling water pollution.

EPA's Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD) works with its Regional counterparts to review and approve or disapprove State Section 303(d) lists and TMDLs from 56 respondents (the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the five Territories). Section 303(d) specifically requires States to develop lists and TMDLs “from time to time” and EPA to review and approve or disapprove the lists and the TMDLs. EPA also collects State 305(b) reports from 59 respondents (the 50 States, the District of Columbia, five Territories, and 3 River Basin commissions).

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 66,590 hours per year per respondent for the 56 respondents with both 305(b) and 303(d) responsibilities and TMDL development activities. The average reporting burden for the 3 respondents with only 305(b) responsibilities is estimated at 3,659 hours per year. 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: States, Territories, River Basin Commissions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 59.

Frequency of Response: Biennially.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,740,017.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $177,837,808, includes no capital or O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32640), 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 No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0298, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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: Certification of Pesticide Applicators.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0155.09, OMB Control No. 2070-0029.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2007. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed 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: This ICR is designed to provide EPA with the information necessary to oversee training and certification programs for applicators of restricted use pesticides. In addition, it will provide EPA with information on training activities imposed on registrants of pesticide products which assert claims to inactivate bacillus anthracis (anthrax) spores, (referred to as “anthrax-related products”). FIFRA allows the EPA to classify a pesticide as “restricted use” if the pesticide meets certain toxicity or risk criteria. Restricted use pesticides, because of their potential to harm human health or the environment, may be applied only by a certified applicator or by a person under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. A person must meet certain standards of competency to become a certified applicator. States can be delegated the certified applicator program, but it must be approved by the Agency before it can be implemented. In non-participating entities, EPA administers the certification program.

Annual reports from the states are used as a monitoring tool to develop overall data on pesticide activities for OMB, Congress, and others; to distribute EPA grant funds to participating states, to target enforcement activities, and to revise certification and training program emphasis and requirements. An application form is used to obtain vital information from persons applying for Federal certification, such as name and address, and to schedule applicators for Federal certification or re-certification in Navajo Indian Country. Dealer records are necessary to ensure that access to restricted use pesticides is limited to certified applicators. A detailed record of each application of a restricted use pesticide is required for certified commercial applicators. Without these records it would often be difficult to successfully enforce against misuse. The information on registrant training for anthrax-related products will help assure that applications of those products are performed safely, effectively and in accordance with the requirements of federal, state and local authorities. Responses to this ICR are mandatory. The authority for this information collection activity is provided under sections 3(d) and 11 of FIFRA and 40 CFR part 171.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 77.4 hours for annual reports by states on their certification and training programs, 0.17 hours for completion of the EPA application form for certified applicators in federal programs, 3.1 hours for record-keeping of restricted use pesticide applications by commercial applicators, 25 hours for training and examination materials by registrants of anthrax-related products, and 18.5 hours for record-keeping of sale, use, and training of applicators of anthrax-related products, 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: Pesticide applicators on farms, commercial services applicators, State/Tribal pesticide lead agencies, pesticide dealers, pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 421,095.

Frequency of Response: Annually for State reports; once every 3 years for application for certification/re-certification; on occasion for commercial applicator recordkeeping, and for anthrax-related training materials and recordkeeping.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,309,751.

Estimated Total Annual Labor Cost: $39,703,211.

Changes in the Estimates: The total estimated respondent burden for this renewal ICR reflects a net decrease of 1,617 hours related to 2 small program changes and adjustments to the previous estimate. The significant adjustment increase in the number of responses is primarily due to a change in counting the number of responses verses respondents. The first program change is adoption of the private applicator and dealer recordkeeping programs by the State of Colorado. Colorado already administered the commercial applicator program. The second program change pertains to the new training and recordkeeping burdens that are expected to be imposed on registrants of anthrax-related products via registration terms and conditions.

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, 2007 (72 FR 26353), EPA sought comments on this renewal ICR. EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one non-substantive comment during the comment period. Any comments related to 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-OPPT-2007-0094, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person inspection at the OPPT Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8 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 Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is 202-566-0280.

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: Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances.

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 0574.13, OMB No. 2070-0012.

ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2007. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed 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: Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires manufacturers and importers of new chemical substances to submit to EPA notice of intent to manufacture or import a new chemical substance 90 days before manufacture or import begins. EPA reviews the information contained in the notice to evaluate the health and environmental effects of the new chemical substance. On the basis of the review, EPA may take further regulatory action under TSCA, if warranted. If EPA takes no action within 90 days, the submitter is free to manufacture or import the new chemical substance without restriction.

TSCA section 5 also authorizes EPA to issue Significant New Use Rules (SNURs). EPA uses this authority to take follow-up action on new or existing chemicals that may present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment if used in a manner that may result in different and/or higher exposures of a chemical to humans or the environment. Once a use is determined to be a significant new use, persons must submit a notice to EPA 90 days before beginning manufacture, processing or importation of a chemical substance for that use. Such a notice allows EPA to receive and review information on such a use and, if necessary, regulate the use before it occurs.

Finally, TSCA section 5 also permits applications for exemption from section 5 review under certain circumstances. An applicant must provide information sufficient for EPA to make a determination that the circumstances in question qualify for an exemption. In granting an exemption, EPA may impose appropriate restrictions. This information collection addresses the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with TSCA section 5.

Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR parts 700, 720, 721, 723 and 725). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 100.3 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; 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: Entities potentially affected by this action are companies that manufacture, process or import chemical substances.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Estimated No. of Respondents: 443.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 154,322 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Labor Costs: $36,387,880.

Changes in Burden Estimates: There is a decrease of 9,469 hours (from 163,791 hours to 154,322 hours rounded) in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that currently in the OMB inventory. This decrease reflects EPA's experience with the numbers of submissions since the most recent OMB approval of this collection. The decrease is an adjustment.

Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC agenda or making a presentation at any of the meetings may contact Monica Rodia, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes.

Proposed agenda items for the meetings include, but are not limited to: Teleconference #1: The objectives of the review; an overview of ORD's Global Change research program; a summary of major changes in the Global Change research program since 2005; Teleconference #2: A synopsis of the revised Global Multi-Year Plan; subcommittee discussions; and preparation for the face-to-face meeting; face-to-face meeting: Subcommittee discussions of the Global Change research program's progress in response to recommendations from its 2005 BOSC review and other activities. The meetings are open to the public. The subcommittee roster and charge can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/subcomm-gc_mid.htm.

Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Monica Rodia at (202) 564-8322 or rodia.monica@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Monica Rodia, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

GSA will distribute 10 copies of the Record of Decision to the Haskell Free Library, 96 Caswell Avenue, Derby Line, Vermont, the Daily Memorial Library, 101 Jr. High Drive, Derby, Vermont and the Goodrich Memorial Library, 202 Main Street, Newport, Vermont.

The U.S. General Services Administration has published a Final Environmental Impact Statement on the following project:

New U.S. Commercial Port of Entry Derby Line, Vermont

Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the undersized and functionally obsolete Commercial Port of Entry at Derby Line with a new facility that meets the needs of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service (CBP), complies with the design requirements of GSA, and provides efficient and safe inspection and processing of vehicles and people at the border crossing.

The proposed project is needed because the size and conditions of the existing buildings, as well as the overall site configuration, are substandard, preventing the agencies assigned to the port from adequately fulfilling their respective missions. This condition has become more noticeable in recent years due to the increase in commercial truck traffic and heightened security at the border following the terrorist attacks in 2001. The deficiencies with the existing facilities have led to extensive traffic delays for vehicles entering the U.S., frequently resulting in backups of over one mile on Highway 55 in Canada. The deficiencies fall into three broad categories: 1) building deficiencies, 2) overall site deficiencies, and 3) insufficient security.

The following alternatives were analyzed to determine which best satisfied the project's purpose and need:

Under the No-Build Alternative, operation of the Port of Entry would continue at its existing location using the existing facilities. With the exception of minor repairs and upgrades to existing buildings, no new construction or demolition would take place. No new inspection lanes or facilities would be built.

The selected alternative (the Build Alternative) consists of a new facility on the existing property and requires the full or partial acquisition of several adjacent parcels.

The Build Alternative was identified as GSA's preferred alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and as the selected alternative in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, because it best satisfied the project's purpose and need with the least adverse environmental impact. Three alternatives—Alternatives 1, 2, and 3—were developed to locate the new port facilities within different configurations on the existing port site. However none of these alternatives were found to be feasible from a traffic engineering perspective, as described below.

Alternative No. 1 would locate the Main Port Building to the east of the existing Port Building, generally in the undeveloped area situated between the northbound lanes of Route I-91 and the Caswell Avenue exit ramp. The primary inspection lanes/booths would be connected to the building's northwest corner and the Non-Commercial Secondary Inspection Building would be connected to the south. A combined Commercial Secondary Inspection and NII Building would be located to the west-southwest of the Main Port Building, immediately south of the existing non-commercial secondary inspection facilities. A new Agency Vehicle Storage Garage would be located south of the existing Commercial Secondary Inspection Building and west of the existing primary inspection lanes/booths. Finally, an outbound inspection lane/booth would be located in one of the northbound lanes of Route I-91, northeast of the Main Port Building.

Alternative No. 1 has the following negative aspects:

• Trucks would be required to back-up from the NII Building to access the Commercial Secondary Inspection Building's loading docks, although this movement would not impact through travel lanes;

• A vacant commercial property on Maple Street would be displaced to accommodate the relocated Route I-91 southbound ramp, and a vacant commercial property on Herrick Road would be displaced to accommodate the relocated Route I-91 northbound exit ramp;

• Secondary RPMs (SRPMs) would be located in a tight location, possibly complicating access and circulation;

• The provision of an appropriate deceleration lane on Route I-91 Southbound at Exit 29 would be required;

• Trucks may have difficulty accessing the parking area when exiting the NII building;

• The truck exit lane from the primary inspection lanes/booths onto Route I-91 Southbound has tight clearances near the NII building, complicating circulation;

• The proposed Route I-91 northbound geometry does not fulfill the requirements of a 40 mph design speed. Examples include the substandard length of the horizontal curve passing under Caswell Avenue, as well as its close proximity (inadequate separation) to the next horizontal curve immediately to its south;

• Poor sight distance for Route I-91 northbound traffic to the nose of the proposed northbound off-ramp (approximately 400 feet);

• The alternative does not include safety improvements to provide positive separation between opposing traffic on the northbound and southbound ramps to Caswell Avenue;

• Parking facilities for the proposed Port fall within the clear zone of the proposed Route I-91 northbound lanes, and;

• The length of the proposed northbound off-ramp would be substantially reduced from the existing condition. This is very problematic for two reasons:

Because Alternative No. 1 does not meet the proposed project's goals, and because it is inadequate from a traffic engineering standpoint, it was eliminated from further consideration.Alternative No. 2 is similar to Alternative No. 1 in many respects, but with several clear differences. Under this alternative, the Main Port Building would be located in the same general area as in Alternative No. 1; however Alternative No. 2 reorients the Main Port Building and combined Commercial Secondary Inspection and NII Building to be parallel, thereby creating a straight line through the inspection area. The primary inspection lanes/booths would be connected to the Main Port Building's northwest corner and the Non-Commercial Secondary Inspection Building would be connected to the south. The Agency Vehicle Storage Garage would be located farther north under this alternative, which would provide additional truck parking and improves truck access to the Route I-91 southbound off-ramp to Caswell Avenue.

Alternative No. 2 has the following negative aspects:

• Local access to the Port of Entry would require the use of a turnout located north of the Port of Entry;

• Trucks would be required to back-up from the NII Building to access the Commercial Secondary Inspection Building's loading docks, although this movement would not impact through travel lanes;

• A vacant commercial property on Maple Street would be displaced to accommodate the relocated Route I-91 southbound ramp and a vacant commercial property on Herrick Road would be displaced to accommodate the relocated Route I-91 northbound ramp;

• The horizontal alignment of Route I-91 Southbound near Exit ramp is a concern. The provision of appropriate acceleration and deceleration lanes would be needed;

• Utilizing the truck parking area located near the Agency Vehicle Storage Garage would require trucks to back-up into the circulation area;

• The proposed Route I-91 northbound geometry does not fulfill the requirements of a 40 mph design speed. Examples include the substandard length of the horizontal curve passing under Caswell Avenue (Curve A), as well as its close proximity (inadequate separation) to the next horizontal curve immediately to its south (Curve B);

• Curve B is substandard in length and curvature, and;

• The proposed Route I-91 northbound geometry consists of a “broken back” configuration, i.e. , two adjacent horizontal curves in the same direction (both to the left in this instance) with minimal separation. This is a poor design practice.

Because Alternative No. 2 does not meet the proposed project's goals, and because it is inadequate from a traffic engineering standpoint, it was eliminated from further consideration.

Unlike Alternative Nos. 1 and 2, Alternative No. 3 would retain the existing Route I-91 Southbound entrance/exit ramp, and the NII Building would be a separate structure from the Commercial Secondary Inspection Building. The Main Port Building would be located in the same general area as in the other two alternatives; however its orientation would not be parallel to the NII Building, which also would be located in the same general area as in the other two alternatives. The primary inspection lanes/booths would be connected to the Main Port Building's northwest corner and the Non-Commercial Secondary Inspection Building would be connected to the south. The Commercial Secondary Inspection Building would be located in the same general area as the existing broker building, and the Agency Vehicle Garage would be located immediately north, both along the site's western perimeter.

Alternative No. 3 has the following negative aspects:

• Southbound movements to and from Route I-91's Exit 29 would complicate circulation;

• Trucks would be required to back-up from the NII Building to access the Commercial Secondary Inspection Building's loading docks;

• Would result in a tight turning radius from the NII Building to Exit 29;

• Would result in difficult truck maneuvering and parking when trucks leave the primary inspection lane/booth and are destined to the secondary inspection area;

• Would result in a higher potential for pedestrian/motor vehicle circulation conflicts on the property;

• Access to the Port of Entry from Herrick Road would require the use of a turnout located north of the Port of Entry;

• Secondary RPMs would be located in a tight location, possibly complicating access and circulation.

• The proposed Route I-91 northbound geometry does not fulfill the requirements of a 40 mph design speed. Examples include the substandard length of the horizontal curve passing under Caswell Avenue, as well as its close proximity (inadequate separation) to the next horizontal curve immediately to its south;

• Poor sight distance for Route I-91 northbound traffic to the nose of the proposed northbound off-ramp (approximately 400 feet);

• The alternative does not include safety improvements to provide positive separation between opposing traffic on the northbound and southbound ramps to Caswell Avenue;

• Parking facilities for the proposed Port fall within the clear zone of the proposed Route I-91 northbound lanes;

• The length of the proposed northbound off-ramp would be substantially reduced from the existing condition. This is very problematic for two reasons:

• The proposed angular parking adjacent to Route I-91 for “Referrals” will pose a severe safety concern, and;

• The Route I-91 southbound off-ramp geometry is poor and will result in poor vehicular flow exiting the Port.

Because Alternative No. 3 does not meet the goals of the proposed project, and because it is inadequate from a traffic engineering standpoint, it was eliminated from further consideration.

Due to the many problems associated with them and because another alternative exists that fully satisfies the project's purpose and need with less adverse impact, Alternative Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were dismissed from further consideration.

Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Project

The Build Alternative would have a small impact on the natural and social environment of the Derby Line region. The Build Alternative would require the full or partial acquisition of several adjacent properties. The Build Alternative would result in minor changes or impacts in traffic, noise, surface water runoff, and increased lighting. In each case, the changes would not be significant.

As a final design for the facility is developed, GSA/CBP will evaluate traffic processing flow and wait times and, if necessary, identify appropriate idling reduction strategies. Such strategies may include development of signage at strategic locations and/or educational outreach to local industries whose drivers frequently use the border crossing.

Decision

GSA has decided to proceed with the design of the Build Alternative because it best meets the purpose and need of the proposed project, and would have positive impacts on inbound traffic compared to the No-Build Alternative. The traffic circulation patterns of the Build Alternative, with the installation of increased security and technology measures, would result in shorter vehicle queues and more effective and faster processing times for inbound vehicles. The separation of non-commercial traffic from commercial traffic would greatly reduce queuing that occurs with the No-Build Alternative when more than one truck is present for processing.

The number of inbound booths for processing vehicular traffic would change from one commercial and four non-commercial lanes to one commercial, three non-commercial and one “dual-use” lane, with space reserved for the future addition of a second “dual-use” lane. The rearrangement of inspection lanes, as well as a general reconfiguration of the entire site, will result in the safer and more efficient processing of inbound vehicles. Traffic backups into Canada would be reduced with the new lane and site configurations.

GSA selected the environmentally preferable alternative. The selected and environmentally preferable alternative best met the purpose and need for the project with the least impact to the natural and social environments, and best protects, preserves, and enhances the historic, cultural, and natural resources of the area.

The following economic, technical, and GSA mission considerations were weighed in reaching the decision: The Build Alternative would adequately address the problem that the existing facility, although well maintained, does not meet GSA's or accessibility guidelines and provides only a small percentage of the total building square foot area required to meet the needs of the CBP and other agencies. It also addresses the problem that the existing Commercial Port of Entry suffers from a variety of basic deficiencies that hamper the CBP and other agencies in providing safe and efficient processing of vehicular and pedestrian traffic including:

• Deficiencies in the main building (size, accessibility, structural, etc.)

• Deficiencies in site circulation and layout

• Deficiencies in processing of inbound commercial and non-commercial vehicles, especially in the lack of space to perform secondary inspections of large commercial vehicles

• Deficiencies in processing outbound vehicular and pedestrian traffic

• Lack of parking spaces

• Lack of a designated delivery area

• Deficiencies in exterior lighting

• Deficiencies related to security measures (equipment, fencing, building setbacks, etc.)

Comments

The Draft EIS was issued on July 28, 2006, initiating a 45-day public comment period. A public hearing was held on August 29, 2006 to receive comments. Comments received on the DEIS were responded to in the Final EIS.

The Final EIS was issued on July 6, 2007, initiating a 30-day comment period which ended on August 6, 2007. Letters were received from USEPA, USACOE, State Senator Vince Illuzzi, the Town of Derby Select Board, the Village of Derby Line Trustees and two private citizens.

Federal Agencies

USEPA

Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency—New England Region (EPA) has reviewed the U.S. General Services Administration's (GSA) Final Environmental Impact Statement for a new U. S. Border Station and Commercial Port of Entry in Derby Line, Vermont. We continue to have no objections to the project as described.

Response: GSA appreciates EPA's lack of objections to the project and their designation of the EIS as adequate. As a final design for the facility is developed, GSA/CBP will evaluate traffic processing flow and wait times and, if necessary, identify appropriate idling reduction strategies.

USACOE

Comment 1: During a February 2, 2006 on-site meeting and in an April 4, 2006 e-mail message with your consultant, The Louis Berger Group, they were informed that the proposed project will require a Department of the Army permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and that the New England Division Highway Methodology will be followed.

This process integrates the Corps of Engineers Section 404 process and the NEPA EIS process. To this date we have not received an application to perform the proposed work discussed in the Final EIS. For individual permits you must submit information that thoroughly and clearly documents the need for the fill, alternatives, and mitigation possibilities. Without this information, we could not issue a permit to place the fill. Additionally, in accordance with our regulations, no permit can be issued unless it complies with the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guideline. These guidelines prohibit discharges where less environmentally damaging, practicable alternatives (LEDPA) exist.

Although, the Final EIS has chosen a Build Alternative, the Corps has insufficient information at this time to select the LEDPA.

Therefore, our comments on the Final EIS are relatively brief and relate to the information that would be required in the future to evaluate a Department of the Army permit application to construct the proposed project.

Response 1: GSA recognizes that the Army Corps of Engineers will require additional information to evaluate the project. This information will be developed as the project advances through the design phase and will be furnished with the Department of the Army permit application.

Comment 2: The document generally addresses the environmental impacts of the project and of the preferred alternative. We believe that additional narrative descriptions of the aquatic resources that would be impacted and the nature of the impacts should be provided in order to provide a complete understanding of the project and its' effects. This information will be required for our permit review.

Response 2: As the project advances through the design phase, additional information will be developed that will be submitted with all permit applications.

Comment 3: Summary Page S-2, Hydrology: The brief summary mentions that the wetlands on the site are Class Three wetlands, which are not subject to the Vermont Wetland Rules. However, there is no mention that a permit will be required by the Corps of Engineers. The project will involve the placement of fill into the streams and wetlands on the site and, therefore, require a Department of the Army permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The need for potential mitigation for the proposed impacts to the aquatic resources should be mentioned.

Response 3: GSA recognizes that a permit from the Corps of Engineers will be required. As the design progresses to a point where it can support a permit application, the application will be submitted and mitigation measures will be discussed.

Comment 4: Alternatives: Three alternatives were initially considered and eliminated from further considerations based primarily on engineering. It's likely that these alternatives would have similar waterway and wetland impacts as the Build Alternative. Was any consideration given to the elimination of these alternatives based on their impact to the aquatic resources?

Response 4: GSA agrees that each of the eliminated alternatives would have similar waterway and wetland impacts as the Build Alternative. Because each initially failed from an engineering standpoint, no further consideration was given to them.

Comment 5: Build Alternative: Figure 6 is difficult to read with the yellow and green shading of the proposed highway alignments. The dark lines used to show proposed alignments in Figures 3, 4 & 5 allow you to view existing conditions.

Response 5: Comment noted.

Comment 6: Chapter 3, Hydrology: There is a lack of a clear understanding that a Department of the Army permit under the CWA will be required for the proposed project.

Response 6: GSA understands that a Department of the Army permit under the CWA will be required for the proposed project. An application for said permit will be submitted once the project's design advances to a point where sufficient detail is available to support the application.

Comment 7: Pg. 3-5: The Corps of Engineers does not have a “programmatic” General Permit in Vermont.

Response 7: Comment noted.

Comment 8: Pg. 4-3: Surface Water—There is no discussion of the proposed project's impact to the two streams within the project area. The on-site stormwater system has the potential to impact the streams and wetlands. These potential impacts should be mentioned in this chapter.

Response 8: As stated on Page 4-3, the existing facility has limited stormwater management measures in place; the proposed project will represent a substantial improvement over existing conditions. As a result, no significant impacts to surface water conditions are anticipated.

Comment 9: Wetlands—Figure 17 indicates that about 1.786 acres of wetlands will be impacted. Yet, here about 2.1 acres of wetland will be impacted. Check these calculations.

Response 9: Comment noted. Table 18 contains the correct information.

Comment 10: Table 18—Approximately 1.02 acres of Wetland E will be filled. Yet in Figure 17 about 0.721 acre of Wetland E will be filled and about 1.022 acres of Wetland E will remain. Check these calculations.

Response 10: Comment noted. Table 18 contains the correct information.

State Officials

State Senator Vince Illuzzi

Comment: Enclosed are two letters, one from the Village of Derby Line and the other from the Town of Derby, expressing relatively serious concerns, based on available information, about the proposed construction of a new commercial I-91 Derby Line port of entry and border station.

In addition to the concerns articulated in these two letters, I have heard from a number of area residents expressing similar concerns about the project.

Please give serious consideration to addressing and resolving the issues raised by these two letters.

I am also taking the liberty of sending copies of this letter with enclosures to Vermont's congressional delegation. This will enable our two U. S. Senators and our Congressman to more closely monitor the local issues and concerns.

Response: GSA appreciates Senator Illuzzi's interest in the proposed project. GSA is in receipt of the letters from the Village of Derby Line and the Town of Derby and has provided responses to them (see below).

Local Officials

Derby Select Board

Comment 1: We would like to address various concerns we have with the Final EIS for the proposed new commercial Port of Entry and Border Station, Route 1-91 Derby Line, Vermont. We do understand the need for a new Port of Entry and hope that it will have a minimal impact on the Town and Village during the entire process.

Response 1: GSA appreciates the Town's interest in the proposed project and will continue to make every reasonable effort to minimize potential impacts to the Town and Village.

Comment 2: The federal government will be taking significant portions of commercially zoned property. The remaining commercially zoned property will not be as valuable. The current and future effects of this land acquisition have not been considered as the value to the Town and Village is important for future economic development.

Response 2: On the east side of Route I-91, the proposed project will potentially acquire a vacant commercial parcel as well as an amount of frontage along Herrick Road. The amount to be acquired is small relative to the total area that has been commercially re-zoned. It should be noted that Herrick Road would merely be shifted to the east; access to all commercial parcels would remain. Further, the decrease in traffic congestion on Route I-91 would make the area more attractive to potential investors. It should also be noted that the amount of land estimated to be acquired is based upon the project's conceptual design, as the project advances through the design process the amount of land to be acquired could change and possibly be reduced.

Comment 3: The staffing increase has not been adequately answered either. We know the numbers have increased since 2001. What are those numbers? What are the current staffing levels? How many employees of Homeland Security? GSA? Section 1.2.2.1 mentions the increased staffing, but no numbers.

Response 3 : Staffing levels are an operational issue rather than an environmental issue.

Comment 4: A greater concern is addressed in the Hazardous Cargo Plan of the EIS. The increasing numbers of trucks carrying hazardous materials going through the Port is worrisome. A truck that has a problem is allowed to stay at the Port in a restricted area for up to 48 hours. That is to (sic.) long for us to feel that the area residents are safe. The Town and Village should be notified immediately if this situation arises so that citizens can be notified and given the option to leave the area if they choose.

Response 4: As a result of the Trade Act of 2002, Advance Electronic Information is required for all cargo types entering the U.S., including hazardous materials. The Advance Electronic Information system requires that manifests for all commercial loads coming into the U.S. be sent to CBP at least one hour prior to arrival at the Port of Entry. If the one hour pre-clearance is not submitted, the truck is refused entry and turned back to Canada. In addition, all hazardous materials being imported into the U.S. must make a formal entry through a certified Customs broker and filed with CBP. Also, all drivers importing into the U.S. must have a valid FAST (Free and Secure Trade) card from CBP, if they do not possess a FAST card the shipment will not be allowed to enter the U.S. and will be returned to Canada. Each of these programs gives CBP advance warning of any hazardous cargo that would be arriving at the Port.

According to CBP operating procedures, if a truck (or any vehicle for that matter) arrived at the border with serious equipment issues constituting a hazardous situation, CBP would contact state and local authorities through 911 and would attempt to isolate the vehicle until emergency responders arrived at the scene to stabilize and remove the vehicle as soon as possible. Any truck that has a problem is not allowed to stay at the Port for up to 48 hours. CBP does not hold trucks at the Port at any time for reasons of unsafe operating conditions.

Comment 5: The Town of Derby has a Solid Waste Plan which needs to be followed along with the Northeast Kingdom Solid Waste Management District, of which Derby is a member.

Response 5: It is the policy of GSA to meet or exceed local regulations when it does not compromise the mission of the tenant agencies. To the extent possible, GSA will adhere to the Town's Solid Waste Plan and the regulations of the Northeast Kingdom Solid Waste Management District.

Comment 6: The truck traffic on Caswell Avenue as mentioned in section 3.2.7 is too high. The Village has been trying for years to reduce the heavy truck traffic through the Village. During construction and after, what assurance do we have that more trucks will stay on the interstate highway system?

Response 6: In order to reduce truck traffic on Caswell Avenue, the weight limits on Route I-91 would need authority to increase the weight limits on Route I-91; FHWA is the federal agency that regulates weight limits, which can only be done through Congressional action. Since this is an existing border station that must remain in operation for the duration of the construction process, the construction will be phased in such a way that the facility continues to effectively operate and perform its daily functions. Route I-91 would not be closed.

Comment 7: The air quality issues have not been adequately addressed either. The increased truck traffic only increases poor air quality. When traffic is backed up in both directions for a mile or more each way, the air quality is going to be effected. Studies need to be done in this area, not Chittenden County. On hot summer days we have truck and vehicular traffic backed up idling for hours in the Port area. What is the air quality for our residents like then, especially the residents at Michaud Manor who are elderly and may have breathing problems already?

Response 7: The proposed project will not result in increased truck traffic. It will provide more queuing space, which should help to alleviate traffic backups into Canada. Depending upon the CBP guidelines for vehicle processing in place at the time, it is possible that traffic backups could continue. During the project's design phase, additional traffic circulation modeling will be done to ascertain whether the proposed future 6th processing lane would be included as part of the project now.

Comment 8: We hope that these issues will be considered and answers provided to the questions we have as well as the citizens we represent, prior to any final decisions being made. We would gladly invite you to come back to Derby/Derby Line and address the questions we still have.

Response 8 : GSA appreciates the Town's concerns and will continue to work with local officials to address these concerns as the project advances through the design process.

Trustees of the Village of Derby Line

Comment 1: We are writing this letter to address issues that we feel were not explained adequately in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed new Port of Entry on 1-91 in Derby Line. We know that the existing building is too small and is outdated, but we think that some issues need to be either explained more fully or changed in some way.

Response 1: GSA appreciates the interest of the Village of Derby Line in the proposed project and will endeavor to address any outstanding issues below.

Comment 2: First, we are concerned about both air and noise pollution. In the past year, Customs and Border Protection has instituted new inspection procedures that make the time to clear a vehicle (especially a passenger vehicle) much more lengthy. This means that vehicles stay in line longer and backups are longer, which means that there are more exhaust fumes and noise. The Sound Level table that you have page 3-47 of the FEIS is no longer valid as it dates before the new procedures. We would like tosee a new table based on measurements done under the new conditions. In addition we would like to see new air quality data.

Response 2: The proposed project will provide more queuing space, which should help to alleviate traffic backups into Canada. Depending upon the CBP guidelines for vehicle processing in place at the time, it is possible that traffic backups could ontinue. During the project's design phase, additional traffic circulation modeling will be done to ascertain whether the proposed future 6th processing lane would be included as part of the project now.

Comment 3: Also, the EPA has issued an anti-idling policy which cuts down on air pollution and saves on fuel. We would like to see this policy enforced at the new facility. In connection with noise pollution, we trust that you will continue to maintain the line of trees on the west side of I-9l as a buffer, but we also would like to see more of a noise barrier put in place. This could be a vegetated berm or a wall. Both of these structures could reduce noise by up to 20 decibels or more, while the tree barrier reduces it by just 5 decibels.

Response 3: As a final design for the facility is developed, GSA/CBP will evaluate traffic processing flow and wait times and, if necessary, identify appropriate idling reduction strategies. Such strategies may include development of signage at strategic locations and/or educational outreach to local industries whose drivers frequently use the border crossing.

With regard to noise, because of the expected improvement to traffic flow, future noise levels will not approach the FHWA abatement criteria of 67 dBA. As such, mitigation measures would not be required. GSA will, however, continue to evaluate potential noise impacts as the project progresses and will work with the community to reach a mutually agreeable scenario.

Comment 4: We are concerned about the number of trucks carrying hazardous materials though the I-91 port. Should there be a spill or explosion, the Village and its residents would be immediately affected. We would like to see a detailed hazmat plan that would be followed in the event of such an accident. In addition we would like to be informed of what extra safety precautions are taken for such cargo in the case that the truck has problems and must be held for 48 hours.

Response 4: As a result of the Trade Act of 2002, Advance Electronic Information is required for all cargo types entering the U.S., including hazardous materials. The Advance Electronic Information system requires that manifests for all commercial loads coming into the U.S. be sent to CBP at least one hour prior to arrival at the Port of Entry. If the one hour pre- clearance is not submitted, the truck is refused entry and turned back to Canada. In addition, all hazardous materials being imported into the U.S. must make a formal entry through a certified Customs broker and filed with CBP. Also, all drivers importing into the U.S. must have a valid FAST (Free and Secure Trade) card from CBP, if they do not possess a FAST card the shipment will not be allowed to enter the U.S. and will be returned to Canada. Each of these programs gives CBP advance warning of any hazardous cargo that would be arriving at the Port.

According to CBP operating procedures, if a truck (or any vehicle for that matter) arrived at the border with serious equipment issues constituting a hazardous situation, CBP would contact state and local authorities through 911 and would attempt to isolate the vehicle until emergency responders arrived at the scene to stabilize and remove the vehicle as soon as possible. Any truck that has a problem is not allowed to stay at the Port for up to 48 hours. CBP does not hold trucks at the Port at any time for reasons of unsafe operating conditions.

Comment 5: The FEIS states that the Village is due no compensation for the commercial land that is being appropriated due to the fact that no one is using it at this time, and future possibilities cannot be taken into account. This is ludicrous; the reason that commercial entities have not established themselves on the property is due to the very event that we are studying. No one is going to start a business on land that may well be appropriated by the government for port of entry expansion. We feel that the Village should be considered for some type of compensation for lost tax revenue.

Response 5: GSA will compensate individual property owners from whom land is acquired according to the fair market value of the land to be acquired. The fair market value considers a parcel's zoning and its future development potential and makes adjustments for it. The fact that Herrick Road would be shifted to the east, without cutting off access to any properties, should not discourage commercial entities from locating to the area. The laws and regulations that control land acquisition allow for direct compensation to the landowner whose property is taken, but prohibit payments to local governments for loss of tax revenue.

Comment 6: We are concerned about the increased paved area and the amount of stormwater runoff that will ensue. The Village already has an inadequate stormwater system. To burden it with more runoff could lead to serious flooding on Main Street in the Village. The FEIS says that provisions have been made for a stormwater system at the port of entry. The Village would like to be able to see and review this plan.

Response 6: The project site (the existing facility) sits at an elevation lower than the surrounding terrain; it is unlikely that any flooding would occur on Main Street, which is located over 2,000 feet to the west and at a higher elevation. As the project advances through the design process a detailed stormwater management plan will be developed. This plan will be shared with local officials.

Comment 7: The unnamed brook that flows from the east under the highway has been a brook trout habitat. We trust that every precaution will be taken to keep it so.

Response 7: During the project's design phase, all precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to the aforementioned brook.

Comment 8: The FEIS states that economic benefits will accrue to the six counties nearest the proposed new port of entry mainly in the labor and supplies needed to build the new building. However, this will last only as long as it takes to finish construction—approximately 2 years. The Village will bear the brunt of the costs ( i.e. , loss of tax revenue, cost of infrastructure changes, etc.), and could lose jobs if plans to automate commercial entries eliminate customs brokers businesses. There should be some compensation for this.

Response 8: As stated in the response to Comment 5, the laws and regulations that control land acquisition allow for direct compensation to the landowner whose property is taken, but prohibit payments to local governments for loss of tax revenue. During the design process, GSA will work with the Village to address the Village's concerns with regard to the cost of infrastructure changes.

Comment 9: Our last concern is that construction of the new facility will cause 1-91 to close for periods of time, rerouting the traffic to Rt. 5 through the Village. Since this crossing is already overtaxed, and long lineups are creating both traffic safety problems and difficulties in accessing businesses on the west side of Main Street, additional traffic would be a disaster. We want assurance that this event will not happen, and that vehicles will be able to cross the border at 1-91 at all times for the duration of the project.

Response 9: Since this is an existing border station that must remain in operation for the duration of the construction process, the construction will be phased in such a way that the facility continues to effectively operate and perform its daily functions. Route I-91 would not be closed.

Comment 10: Finally, we want to be consulted and have input on the final plan before it is published.

Response 10: It is the policy of GSA to meet or exceed local regulations when it does not compromise the mission of the tenant agencies. GSA will continue to solicit and welcome the coordination and cooperation of many entities from several local and state jurisdictions as the project advances.

Private Individuals

Randall Bronson

Comment 1: I am writing you concerning the proposed upgrading and reconstruction of the I-91 Customs and Immigration facility in Derby Line. As a nephew of Royce and Joyce Wilson, owners of the Wilson property (last home on Maple Street) that directly borders land that will be used as part of this upgrading, I need to once again make my concerns noted and seek a solution to these concerns. I am taking this step on behalf of my aunt and uncle (Royce Wilson and Joyce Wilson), the owners of this property and also because I do not want undue stress placed upon my Uncle (Royce Wilson) if the Build Alternative, as it seems, is the choice. His health has been impacted over the past few years and any move forward to construct the Build Alternative will certainly be an impact to his quality of life. As a matter of fact, if any of construction proposals impact or impede on the Wilson property, they will significantly reduce his quality of life. Please note that my Uncle, Bernard Wilson, passed away in 2005, after the previous letter I sent you.

Response 1: GSA appreciates Mr. Bronson's concerns and is sensitive to how the proposed project could affect Mr. Wilson's quality of life.

Comment 2: As clarification to some of the history provided by some of the historians you quoted during the last printing of the Impact Study, the changes should be noted as follows:

Elton Bennett farm and house used to exist between the I-91 South bound on-ramp and the current Customs Commercial Building. The house was moved towards Holland and located on the Jim Jacobs property during the construction of I-91.

There used to be a hay barn located south of the Wilson House, by about. 100-200 feet, where the Brokers Building is located. This property was not owned by the Wilson's.

The Cowle House was moved up Herrick Road to its present location. The Wilson's did not own any land south or east of their current property, nor did they farm any of the land. The Wilson residence did enjoy fresh spring water that was supplied by a spring located of a mile southeast of the residence. The connection to this well was severed during the construction of I-91.

Response 2: Comment noted.

Comment 3: First of all, I still believe the only option that will not impact the Wilson residence and property, is to not build. Not building will preserve the quality of the property and will have the least impact on the Royce and Joyce Wilson's ability to market the property and home in the future, if needed.

Response 3: The No-Build Alternative has been rejected because it does not meet the project's purpose and need and is not in the best interest of the United States.

Comment 4: The BUILD ALTERNATIVE will impact our homestead as follows:

1. The I-91 Southbound on-ramp will be unacceptably close to our property.

2. Loss of privacy will be realized and the closeness of the on-ramp could subject the property to invasion and unlawful trespass.

3. Noise level increases will be realized, even though you claim they won't.

4. The front door of the house will be within 75 to 100 feet of the on-ramp, taking away from the esthetic value of the house, not to mention public safety concerns.

5. This option will render the property unmarketable for residential or commercial sale because of the closeness to the I-91 ramp. No one will want to live that close to an on-ramp.

6. The stresses to Royce Wilson will be enormous as he has lived in this house and on this property for the majority of his life.

Response 4: GSA acknowledges the concerns of Mr. Bronson and will work with him and other members of the community to reach mutually agreeable mitigation scenarios.

Comment 5: In conclusion, as the concerned nephew of Royce and Joyce Wilson, I am advocating that I do not agree to the BUILD ALTERNATIVE . If GSA wishes to proceed with the BUILD ALTERNATIVE , the only option should be to negotiate monetary purchase of Royce and Joyce Wilson's homestead at current fair market value and not the value of the property post I-91 upgrade. The GSA purchase of their homestead could then be used as a buffer zone that could be used to allow for more privacy and. quality of life for remaining residents along Maple Street.

Response 5: GSA is willing to work with Mr. Bronson to achieve a mutually agreeable solution.

John Bullis

Comment 1: In regards to the proposed changes to the 1-91 POE. I have the same concerns as many others regarding noise, lighting, air pollution's.

Response 1: Comment noted.

Comment 2: However I have another and that is the fact that there exists a drainage ditch between the properties of 83 and 125 Highland Avenue. This ditch is fed on it's West end by a culvert under Highland Avenue and empties on it's East end into a field that will contain the 1-91 Southbound ramp. While most of the time this ditch is dry, there are times when it is full. During heavy rain and Springtime melts. Also there is a large amount of underdrain located under the ground proposed for the on ramp (165 feet I believe maybe more).

Response 2: Comment noted. As the project advances through the design process a detailed stormwater management plan will be developed.

Conclusion

GSA has reached its decision based upon information and analysis contained in the FEIS and outlined in this document. Based on these considerations, GSA has determined that the Build Alternative: (1) best satisfies the project's Purpose and Need, (2) poses the least impact to the natural and human environments, (3) has been selected based on processes in compliance with NEPA and other applicable requirements, and (4) may be advanced through detailed design and construction.

The Public Advisory Committee was created by Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement of United States of America v. State of Alaska , Civil Action No. A91-081 CV. The meeting agenda will include review of the draft fiscal year 2009 invitation for restoration project proposals.

Title/Form: Form MMS-131, Performance Measures Data.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0112.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. ), as amended, requires the Secretary of the Interior to preserve, protect, and develop OCS oil, gas, and sulphur resources; make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; balance orderly energy resource development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments; ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. These responsibilities are among those delegated to MMS. The MMS generally issues regulations to ensure that operations in the OCS will meet statutory requirements; provide for safety and protect the environment; and result in diligent exploration, development, and production of OCS leases.

In 1991 MMS began promoting, on a voluntary basis, the implementation of a comprehensive Safety and Environmental Management Program (SEMP) for the offshore oil and gas industry as a complement to current regulatory efforts to protect people and the environment during OCS oil and gas exploration and production activities. From the beginning, MMS, the industry as a whole, and individual companies realized that at some point they would want to know the effect of SEMP on safety and environmental management of the OCS. The natural consequence of this interest was the establishment of performance measures. We are requesting OMB approval for a routine renewal of Form MMS-131, Performance Measures Data.

The responses to this collection of information are voluntary, although we consider the information to be critical for assessing the effects of the OCS Safety and Environmental Management Program. We can better focus our regulatory and research programs on areas where the performance measures indicate that operators are having difficulty meeting MMS expectations. We are more effective in leveraging resources by redirecting research efforts, promoting appropriate regulatory initiatives, and shifting inspection program emphasis. The performance measures give us valuable quantitative information to use in judging the reasonableness of company requests for alternative compliance or departures under 30 CFR 250.141 and 250.142. We also use the information collected to work with industry representatives to identify and request “pacesetter” companies make presentations at periodic workshops.

Knowing how the offshore operators as a group are doing, and where their own company ranks, provides company management with information to focus their continuous improvement efforts. This leads to more cost-effective prevention actions and, therefore, better cost containment. This information also provides offshore operators and organizations with a credible data source to demonstrate to those outside the industry how well the industry and individual companies are doing.

No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked, and the collection of information involves no proprietary information. We intend to release data collected on Form MMS-131 only in a summary format that is not company-specific. We will protect the information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 2).

Frequency: The frequency is annual, with responses due during the 1 st quarter of the calendar year.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil and gas or sulphur lessees and we expect a 27 percent response rate.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: We estimate the public reporting burden averages 8 hours per response. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the information. The total annual hour burden is estimated to be 280 hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no “non-hour cost” burden associated with Form MMS-131.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, on June 1, 2007, we published a Federal Register notice (72 FR 30624) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. In addition, § 250.199 provides the OMB control numbers for the information collection requirements imposed by the 30 CFR Part 250 regulations and forms; specifies that the public may comment at any time on these collections of information; and provides the address to which they should send comments. This information is also contained in the PRA statement on Form MMS-131. We have received no comments in response to these efforts.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, send your comments directly to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by January 17, 2008.

Public Comment Policy: Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.

In the Central Gulf of Mexico Sale 205, held October 3, 2007, we received 1428 bids on 723 tracts, 616 tracts of which passed to a second phase requiring additional detailed evaluations. The aggressive bidding activity is due, in part, to the high number of quality prospects on recently expired unexplored tracts in newly established deepwater hydrocarbon plays and to the cost saving technological advances related to hydrocarbon exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico's deepwater environment. The unusually high number of bids received on a large number of tracts, and the high volume of exclusively reprocessed data identified on Sale 205, significantly increases the workload for reviewing the adequacy of bids. Consequently, MMS is unable to conduct and complete the bid review process within the 90 days, i.e., by January 1, 2008. Under the provisions of § 256.47 (e) (2), MMS is extending the bid evaluation period until February 15, 2008.

I. Background: The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs administers the Federal Employees' Compensation Act,(5 U.S.C. 8101, et seq. ), which provides for continuation of pay or compensation for work related injuries or disease that result from Federal Employment. Regulation 20 CFR 10.104 designates form CA-2a as the form to be used to request information from claimants with previously accepted injuries who claim a recurrence of disability, and from their supervisors. The form requests information relating to the specific circumstances leading up to the recurrence as well as information about their employment and earnings. The information provided is used by OWCP claims examiners to determine whether a claimant has suffered a recurrence of disability related to an accepted injury and, if so, the appropriate benefits payable. This information collection is currently approved for use through July 31, 2008.

II. Review Focus: The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

III. Current Actions: The Department of Labor seeks the approval for the extension of this currently approved information collection in order to ensure the accurate payment of benefits to current and former Federal employees with recurring work-related injuries.

Type of Review: Extension.

Agency: Employment Standards Administration.

Title: Notice of Recurrences.

OMB Number: 1215-0167.

Agency Number: CA-2a.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Respondents: 680.

Total Annual responses: 680.

Average Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 340.

Frequency: Once Per Recurrence.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $299.00.

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

The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

1. Date: January 7, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Room: 421.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Television Projects: Planning, Scripting, and Production Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs, at the November 5, 2007 deadline.

2. Date: January 14, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Room: 421.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Television Projects: Planning, Scripting, and Production Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs, at the November 5, 2007 deadline.

3. Date: January 15, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: Library of Congress, Jefferson Building, Room 113.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Kluge Fellowships, submitted to the Division of Research Programs, at the July 15, 2007 deadline.

4. Date: January 16, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Room: 421.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Television Projects: Planning, Scripting, and Production Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs, at the November 5, 2007 deadline.

5. Date: January 17, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: Library of Congress, Jefferson Building, Room 113.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Kluge Fellowships, submitted to the Division of Research Programs, at the July 15, 2007 deadline.

6. Date: January 21, 2008.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: Brettenham House (South Entrance), 5 Lancaster Place, London, England WC2E 7EN.

Program: This meeting will review applications for JISC/NEH Transatlantic Digitization Collaboration Grants, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access, at the November 29, 2007 deadline.

7. Date: January 23, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Room: 421.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Television Projects: Planning, Scripting, and Production Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs, at the November 5, 2007 deadline.

8. Date: January 31, 2008.

Time: 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 415.

Program: This meeting, which will be by teleconference, will review applications for Digital Humanities Initiative, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants, at the November 1, 2007 deadline.

9. Date: January 31, 2008.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: Room 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for The Americas in Collaborative Research, submitted to the Division of Research Programs, at the November 1, 2007 deadline.