OMB No:OMB 0412-0566.

Form No.:AID 200-1.

Title:PVO Classification Form.

Type of Review:Reinstatement.

Purpose:The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) requires all private voluntary organizations (PVOs) that wish to be eligible to compete for most forms of foreign economic assistance administered by USAID to register with the Agency. Registration provides a resource for USAID officials to access financial and program information on PVOs. The PVO Registry is a central clearinghouse for information on PVOs working in countries where elsewhere the U.S. Government would not have knowledge of the activities.

To confirm the data is collected in a formalized and consistent manner, USAID has developed the Classification Form's list of sectors and countries that will show where qualified and interested PVOs registered with USAID are working.

Annual Reporting Burden:

Respondents:594.

Total annual responses:594.

Total annual hours requested:132 hours.

On April 6, 2006, we published in theFederal Register(66 FR 17434-17435, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0045) a notice of availability for a scientific evaluation titled, “Evaluation of asymptomatic citrus fruit (Citrusspp.) as a pathway for the introduction of citrus canker disease (Xanthomonas axonopodispv.citri).”

Comments on the scientific evaluation were required to be received on or before June 5, 2006. We are extending the comment period on Docket No.APHIS-2006-0045 for an additional 30 days. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.

The meeting is open to the public. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members; however, persons who wish to bring urban and community forestry matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided.

Pursuant to 36 CFR 219.9(b)(2), the Bitterroot, Flathead and Lolo National Forests are commencing the comment period on their Proposed Forest Land Management Plans. The Plans are available for viewing and downloading at the Web site:http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wmpz.CD (Compact Disk) copies of the Plans will be mailed to persons on our current mailing list and are available to others on request. Plans are also available for viewing at Supervisors Offices and Ranger Stations on the Bitterroot, Flathead and Lolo National Forests. Supporting documentation of analysis procedures and findings will be posted on the Web site and is available upon request.

Comments should be in writing and should meet the following requirements:

1. A statement that the comment is filed during the 90-day comment period, in response to the Western Montana Zone Proposed Forest Land Management Plans.

2. Identification of the specific Proposed Plan or Plans (Bitterroot, Lolo, Flathead) that your comment is addressing.

3. A clear statement of your comment, including reasons, recommendations and supporting information.

Additional guidelines for preparing comments are included with each Proposed Plan.

Scheduled meetings and details of other public involvement opportunities will be posted on the Western Montana Planning zone Web site:http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wmpz.

The opportunity to object to the Final Plan will be during a 30-day objection period before Plan approval (36 CFR 219.13(a)). Any person or organization,other than a federal agency, who participated in the planning process through the submission of written comments, may object to a plan.

Please note that all comments, names, and addresses become part of the public record and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, except for proprietary documents and information.

The purpose of this meeting is for the Antitrust Modernization Commission to deliberate on possible recommendations to Congress and the President regarding the antitrust laws. The Commission will deliberate on recommendations regarding antitrust enforcement institutions, the Robinson-Patman Act, and issues relating to the new economy. The Commission will conduct other additional business as necessary. Materials relating to the meeting will be made available on the Commission's Web site (http://www.amc.gov) in advance of the meeting.

The AMC has called this meeting pursuant to its authorizing statute and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law 107-273, section 11054(f), 116 Stat. 1758, 1857; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., section 10(a)(2); 41 CFR 102-3.150 (2005).

On March 30, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published its final determination of sales at less than fair value in the antidumping investigation of artist canvas from the People's Republic of China. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 16116 (March 30, 2006.) Subsequent to the publication of the final determination, we identified a clerical error in theFederal Register. One of the exporter and producer names in the Final Determination Margins chart is incorrect. The correct name of the exporter and producer should read as follows:

On February 19, 1999, the Department published in theFederal Registerthe antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC.See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 18740 (April 17, 1997).

On March 23, 2005, SZAP, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), requested a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC, which has an April anniversary month. In response to the Department's April 14, 2005, request for information, SZAP provided supplemental information on April 29, 2005. Furthermore, on April 29, 2005, SZAP agreed to waive the time limits of its new shipper review of brake rotors from the PRC, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), and agreed to have its review conducted concurrently with the 2004/2005 administrative review. On May 27, 2005, the Department initiated a new shipper review of SZAP covering the period April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005.See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 70 FR 30696 (May 27, 2005).

On April 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC.See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 16799 (April 1, 2005).

The Department received timely requests from Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Company (“LABEC”); Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Winhere”); Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Haimeng”); Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. (“Hongda”); Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd. (“Hongfa”); Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. (“Meita”); and Shandong Huanri Group General Co., Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co., Ltd., and Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd. (Collectively, “Huanri”), on April 27, 2005, for an administrative review of this antidumping duty order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213. The Department also received a timely request for an administrative review of 26 companies (or producer/exporter combinations),1from the Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers (“petitioners”), on April 28, 2005.

On May 16, 2005, the Department received from CBP copies of customs documents pertaining to the entry of brake rotors from the PRC exported by SZAP during the POR.SeeMemorandum to the File through John Conniff, Acting Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, from Edward Jacobson, Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding13thAntidumping New Shipper Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China(July 13, 2005).

On May 23, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC.See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 30694 (May 27, 2005) (“Initiation Notice”). The review was initiated for 27 individually named firms, with a POR of April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005.2

On May 2, 2005, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted a sunset review of the antidumping duty orders on SSLPP from Japan and Romania, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews, 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005);see also Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, 70 FR 22688, (May 2, 2005).

As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked.See Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Mexico; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR 53159 (September 7, 2005);see also Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (Under 41/2inches) from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR 53151 (September 7, 2005). On April 24, 2006, the ITC determined pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on Large Diameter SSLPP from Japan and Small Diameter SSLPP from Japan and Romania would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, 71 FR 24860 (April 27, 2006), and ITC Publication 3850 (April 2006) (First Review), Investigation No. 731-TA-846-850.

The products covered by this order are large diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes produced, or equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. The scope of this order also includes all other products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below.

Specifically included within the scope of this order are seamless pipes greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.

The seamless pipes subject to this order are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.30, 7304.10.10.45, 7304.10.10.60, 7304.10.50.50, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, and 7304.59.80.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is used primarily for line applications such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or utility distribution systems. Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A106 standard.

Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A333 or ASTM A334 specifications.

Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A795) are used for the conveyance of water. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTMA106, ASTM A53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. The primary application of ASTM A106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes in large diameters is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. A more minor application for large diameter seamless pipes is for use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, as well as in power generation plants and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.

The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below, whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below.

For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A161, ASTM A192, ASTM A210, ASTM A252, ASTM A501, ASTM A523, ASTM A524, and ASTM A618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order.

Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:

A. Boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications.

B. Finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG), if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications.

C. Products produced to the A335 specification unless they are used in an application that would normally utilize ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications.

D. Line and riser pipe for deepwater application,i.e., line and riser pipe that is (1) used in a deepwater application, which means for use in water depths of 1,500 feet or more; (2) intended for use in and is actually used for a specific deepwater project; (3) rated for a specified minimum yield strength of not less than 60,000 psi; and (4) not identified or certified through the use of a monogram, stencil, or otherwise marked with an API specification (e.g., API 5L). With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being utilized in a covered application. If such information is provided, the Department will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in a covered application as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by the petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-335 specification is being used in an A-106 application, it will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally the Department will require only the importer of record to certify to the end-use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, the Department may also require producers who export such products to the United States to provide such certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.

The products covered by the orders are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of the orders also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification. Specifically included within the scope of the orders are seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. The seamless pipes subject to the orders are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gases in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various ASME code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard.

Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units,automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification.

Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water.

Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers.

The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes is use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.

Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or “hollow profiles” of carbon or alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/ hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold under ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications.

The scope of the orders includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of the orders. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, such products are covered by the scope of the orders.

Specifically excluded from the scope of the orders are boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG) are excluded from the scope of the orders, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications.

With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being used in a covered application. If such information is provided, we will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in covered applications as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-161 specification is being used in a standard, line or pressure application, we will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally we will require only the importer of record to certify to the end use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, we may also require producers who export such products to the United States to provide such certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.

As a result of the determinations by the Department and ITC that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on Large Diameter SSLPP from Japan and Small Diameter SSLPP from Japan and Romania.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

The effective date of continuation of this order will be the date of publication in theFederal Registerof this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of this order not later than March 2011.

These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act.

On January 3, 2006, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 71 FR 91 (January 3, 2006). The Department received a notice of intent to participate from four domestic interested parties, Flowline Division of Markovitz Enterprises, Inc. (Flowline), Gerlin, Inc. (Gerlin), Shaw Alloy Piping Products, Inc. (formerly Alloy Piping Products, Inc.) (Shaw Alloy), and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc. (Taylor Forge) (collectively, domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of a domestic like product. We received a complete substantive response from domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not receive any responses from any respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited sunset reviews of these orders.

For purposes of these orders, the product covered is certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (butt-weld fittings). Butt-weld pipe fittings are under 14 inches in outside diameter (based on nominal pipe size), whether finished or unfinished. The product encompasses all grades of stainless steel and “commodity” and “specialty” fittings. Specifically excluded from the definition are threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings, and fittings made from any material other than stainless steel.

The butt-weld fittings subject to these orders are generally designated under specification ASTM A403/A403M, the standard specification for Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Fittings, or its foreign equivalents (e.g., DIN or JIS specifications). This specification covers two general classes of fittings, WP and CR, of wrought austenitic stainless steel fittings of seamless and welded construction covered by the latest revision of ANSI B16.9, ANSI B16.11, and ANSI B16.28. Butt-weld fittings manufactured to specification ASTM A774, or its foreign equivalents, are also covered by these orders.

These orders do not apply to cast fittings. Cast austenitic stainless steel pipe fittings are covered by specifications A351/A351M, A743/743M, and A744/A744M.

The butt-weld fittings subject to these orders are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.

All issues raised in these cases are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 3, 2006 (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet athttp://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margins:

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

We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking by Level B harassment of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock 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, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as:

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 small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

On October 17, 2005, CALTRANS sumbitted a request to NOAA requesting renewal of an IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi), harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), and gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) incidental to the construction of a replacement bridge for the East Span of the SF-OBB, in San Francisco Bay (SFB or the Bay), California. An IHA was issued to CALTRANS for this activity on January 3, 2005 and expired on January 3, 2006 (70 FR 2123, January 12, 2005). Background information on the issuance of this IHA was published in theFederal Registeron January 26, 2006 (71 FR 4352). A detailed description of the SF-OBB project was provided in theFederal Registeron November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64595), and is not repeated here.

A notice of receipt and request for 30-day public comment on the application and proposed authorization was published on January 26, 2006 (71 FR 4352). During the 30-day public comment period, comments were received from the Marine Mammal Commission (the Commission).

Comment 1:The Commission believes NMFS' preliminary determinations are reasonable, provided that the visual monitoring of the safety zone to be conducted prior to and during pile driving operations is adequate to detect all marine mammals within the safety zone. According to CALTRANS, pile driving would occur from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., visual monitoring in the late afternoon and early evening would be compromised during the winter months.

Response:The Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan developed by CALTRANS in May 2002 notes that marine mammal observers will have night-time infrared (IR) scopes or other tools to conduct monitoring during low light conditions. CALTRANS has indicated that when using the IR scopes the marine mammal safety zone and marine mammals are visible. Please also refer toFederal Registernotice published on November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64595) for additional information. NMFS will require the use of IR scopes in the IHA.

Comment 2:The Commission continues to believe that, in situations where a temporary threshold shift (TTS) may lead to biologically significant behavioral effects (e.g., an increased risk of natural predation or ship strikes), it should be considered as having the potential for injury (i.e., Level A Harassment).

Response:CALTRANS will implement a series of mitigation measures including visual monitoring prior to and during construction, installation of a bubble curtain for in-water pile driving, establishment of safety/buffer zones, and implementing “soft star” hammer strikes. Based on CALTRANS' June 2004 and January 2005 annual monitoring reports, the East Span Project is resulting in only small numbers of pinnipeds being harassed (through October 2005, the biological observers indicated that only one startle behavior of a sea lion was observed as a result of construction). Therefore, NMFS believes that it is not likely that a TTS would occur. In addition, NMFS has addressed the issueof impact assessment in several previous small take authorizations, and without new scientific documentation on this issue, a detailed response is not warranted here. For reviewers interested in this discussion, refer to the incidental take authorizations for the USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL shock trial (66 FR 22450, May 4, 2001) and Eglin Air Force Base's Precision Strike Weapon (70 FR 48675, August 19, 2005).

Comment 3:An across-the-board redefinition of TTS from Level A harassment to Level B harassment raises questions both in terms of the activities that involve the potential for repeated TTS harassment and of general cumulative effects. The Commission recommends that NMFS revise its assessment of TTS accordingly.

Response:As NMFS has stated in a previousFederal Registernotice (68 FR 64595, November 14, 2003) that the reclassification of TTS is irrelevant for this IHA, since mitigation and monitoring requirements under the IHA should prevent TTS. While there have been debates among scientists regarding whether a permanent shift in hearing threshold (PTS) can occur with repeated exposures of TTS, at least one study showed that long-term (4 - 7 years) noise exposure on three experimental pinniped species had caused no change on their underwater hearing thresholds at frequencies of 0.2 - 6.4 kHz (Southallet al., 2005).

Description of the Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by the Activity

General information on the marine mammal species found in California waters can be found in Carettaet al.(2004), which is available at the following URL:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html. Refer to that document for information on these species.

The marine mammals most likely to be found in the SF-OBB area are the California sea lion, Pacific harbor seal, and harbor porpoise. From December through May gray whales may also be present in the SF-OBB area. Information on these 4 species was provided in the November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64595) and January 26, 2006 (71 FR 4352)Federal Registernotices and is not repeated here.

CALTRANS and NMFS have determined that open-water pile driving, as outlined in the project description, has the potential to result in a Level B harassment (e.g., disruption of behavioral patterns) of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and gray whales that may be swimming, foraging, or resting in the project vicinity while pile driving is being conducted. Pile driving could potentially harass those few pinnipeds that are in the water close to the project site, whether their heads are above or below the surface.

Based on airborne noise levels measured and on-site monitoring conducted during 2004 under the previous IHA, noise levels from the East Span project did not result in the harassment of harbor seals hauled out on Yerba Buena Island (YBI). Also, noise levels from the East Span project are not expected to result in harassment of the sea lions hauled out at Pier 39 as airborne and waterborne sound pressure levels (SPLs) would attenuate to below harassment levels by the time they reach that haul-out site, 5.7 kilometers (3.5 miles) from the project site.

For reasons provided in greater detail in NMFS' November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64595)Federal Registernotice and in CALTRANS' June 2004 and January 2005 annual monitoring reports, the East Span Project is resulting in only small numbers of pinnipeds being taken by Level B harassment (through October 2005, the biological observers indicated that only one startle behavior of a sea lion was observed as a result of East Span construction) and, therefore, is not expected to result in more than a negligible impact on marine mammal species or stocks and will not have a significant impact on their habitat. Short-term impacts to habitat may include minimal disturbance of the sediment where the channels are dredged for barge access and where individual bridge piers are constructed. Long-term impacts to marine mammal habitat will be limited to the footprint of the piles and the obstruction they will create following installation. However, this impact is not considered significant as the marine mammals can easily swim around the piles of the new bridge, as they currently swim around the existing bridge piers.

The following mitigation measures are required under the IHA to reduce impacts to marine mammals to the lowest extent practicable.

An air bubble curtain system is required to be used only when driving the permanent open-water piles at Piers E3 - E6 of Skyway and Piers E1 and E2 of the Self-Anchored Suspension (SAS) span. While the bubble curtain is required specifically as a method to reduce impacts to endangered and threatened fish species in SFB, it may also provide some benefit to marine mammals. The NMFS' Biological Opinion and the California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) 2001 Incidental Take Permit also allow for the use of other equally effective methods, such as cofferdams, as an alternative to the air bubble curtain system to attenuate the effects of sound pressure waves on fish during driving of permanent in-Bay piles (NMFS 2001; CDFG, 2001). Piers E-16 through E-7 for both the eastbound and westbound structures of the Skyway will be surrounded by sheet-pile cofferdams, which will be de-watered before the start of pile driving. De-watered cofferdams are generally effective sound attenuation devices. For Piers E3 through E6 of the Skyway and Piers 1 and E2 of the Self-Anchored Suspension span, it is anticipated that cofferdams will not be used; therefore, a bubble curtain will surround the piles.

As a result of the determinations made during the Pile Installation Demonstration Project (PIDP) restrike and the investigation at the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, NMFS determined in 2003 that CALTRANS must install an air bubble curtain for pile driving for the open-water piles without cofferdams located at the SF-OBB. This air bubble curtain system consists of concentric layers of perforated aeration pipes stacked vertically and spaced no more than five vertical meters apart in all tide conditions. The minimum number of layers must be in accordance with water depth at the subject pile: 0-5 m = 2 layers (1263 cfm); 5-10 m = 4 layers (2526 cfm), 10-15 m = 7 layers (4420 cfm); 15-20 m = 10 layers (6314 cfm); 20-25 m= 13 layers (8208 cfm). The lowest layer of perforated aeration pipes must be designed to ensure contact at all times and tidal conditions with the mudline without sinking into the bay mud. Pipes in any layer must be arranged in a geometric pattern, which will allow for the pile driving operation to be completely enclosed by bubbles for the full depth of the water column.

To provide a uniform bubble flux, each aeration pipe must have four adjacent rows of air holes along the pipe. Air holes must be 1.6-mm diameter and spaced approximately 20 mm apart. The bubble curtain system will provide a bubble flux of at least two cubic meters per minute, per linear meter of pipeline in each layer. Air holes must be placed in 4 adjacent rows.

The air bubble curtain system must be composed of the following: (1) An air compressor(s), (2) supply lines to deliver the air, (3) distribution manifolds or headers, (4) perforated aeration pipes, and (5) a frame. The frame facilitates transport and placement of the system, keeps the aeration pipes stable, and provides ballast to counteract the buoyancy of the aeration pipes in operation. Meters are required to monitor the operation of the bubble curtain system. Pressure meters will be installed and monitored at all inlets to aeration pipelines and at points of lowest pressure in each branch of the aeration pipeline. If the pressure or flow rate in any meter falls below 90 percent of its operating value, the contractor will cease pile driving operations until the problem is corrected and the system is tested to the satisfaction of the CALTRANS resident engineer.

A safety zone is to be established and monitored to include all areas where the underwater SPLs are anticipated to equal or exceed 180 dB re 1 microPa RMS (impulse) for harbor porpoises and gray whales, and 190 dB re 1 microPa RMS (impulse) for pinnipeds, for open water pile driving activities. Prior to commencement of any pile driving, a preliminary 500-m (1,640-ft) radius safety zone for marine mammals will be established around the pile driving site, as it was for the PIDP. Once pile driving begins, either new safety zones can be established for the 500 kJ and 1700 kJ hammers or the 500 m (1,640 ft) safety zone can be retained. If new safety zones are established based on SPL measurements, NMFS requires that each new safety zone be based on the most conservative measurement (i.e., the largest safety zone configuration). SPLs will be recorded at the 500-m (1,640-ft) contour. The safety zone radius for marine mammals will then be enlarged or reduced, depending on the actual recorded SPLs.

Observers on boats will survey the safety zone to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zone before pile driving of a pile segment begins. If marine mammals are found within the safety zone, pile driving of the segment will be delayed until they move out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above water and then dives below, the contractor will wait 15 minutes and if no marine mammals are seen by the observer in that time it will be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the safety zone. This 15-minute criterion is based on scientific evidence that harbor seals in San Francisco Bay dive for a mean time of 0.50 minutes to 3.33 minutes (Harvey and Torok, 1994), and the mean diving duration for harbor porpoises ranges from 44 to 103 seconds (Westgateet al., 1995). However, due to the limitations of monitoring from a boat, there can be no assurance that the zone will be devoid of all marine mammals at all times.

Once the pile driving of a segment begins it cannot be stopped until that segment has reached its predetermined depth due to the nature of the sediments underlying the Bay. If pile driving stops and then resumes, it would potentially have to occur for a longer time and at increased energy levels. In sum, this would simply amplify impacts to marine mammals, as they would endure potentially higher SPLs for longer periods of time. Pile segment lengths and wall thickness have been specially designed so that when work is stopped between segments (but not during a single segment), the pile tip is never resting in highly resistant sediment layers. Therefore, because of this operational situation, if seals, sea lions, or harbor porpoises enter the safety zone after pile driving of a segment has begun, pile driving will continue and marine mammal observers will monitor and record marine mammal numbers and behavior. However, if pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a marine mammal is sighted within the designated safety zone prior to commencement of pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the Resident Engineer (or other authorized individual) immediately and follow the mitigation requirements as outlined previously in this document.

It should be recognized that although marine mammals will be protected from Level A harassment by establishment of an air-bubble curtain and marine mammal observers monitoring a 190-dB safety zone for pinipeds and 180-dB safety zone for cetaceans, mitigation may not be 100 percent effective at all times in locating marine mammals. Therefore, in order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the project area by allowing marine mammals to vacate the area prior to receiving a potential injury, CALTRANS will also “soft start” the hammer prior to operating at full capacity. CALTRANS typically implements a “soft start” with several initial hammer strikes at less than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40-60 percent energy levels) with no less than a 1 minute interval between each strike. Similar levels of noise reduction are expected underwater. Therefore, the contractor will initiate hammering of both the 500-kJ and the 1,700-kJ hammers with this procedure in order to allow pinnipeds or cetaceans in the area to voluntarily move from the area, this should expose fewer animals to loud sounds both underwater and above water noise. This would also ensure that, although not expected, any pinnipeds and cetaceans that are missed during safety zone monitoring will not be injured.

To mitigate noise levels and, therefore, impacts to California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and gray whales, all construction equipment will comply with applicable equipment noise standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and all construction equipment will have noise control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment.

The following monitoring measures are required under the IHA to reduce impacts to marine mammals to the lowest extent practicable.

The area-wide baseline monitoring and the aerial photo survey to estimate the fraction of pinnipeds that might be missed by visual monitoring have been completed under the current IHA and do not need to be continued.

Safety zone monitoring will be conducted during driving of all open-water, permanent piles without cofferdams and with cofferdams when underwater SPLs reach 180 dB RMS or greater. Monitoring of the pinniped and cetacean safety zones will be conducted by a minimum of three qualified NMFS-approved observers for each safety zone. One three-observer team will be required for the safety zones around each pile driving site, so that multiple teams will be required if pile driving is occurring at multiple locations at the same time. The observers will begin monitoring at least 30 minutes prior to startup of the pile driving. Observers will conduct the monitoring from small boats, as observations from a higher vantage point (such as the SF-OBB) is not practical. Pile driving will not begin until the safety zone is clear of marine mammals. However, as described in the Mitigation section, once pile driving of a segment begins, operations will continue uninterrupted until the segment has reached its predetermined depth. However, if pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a marine mammal is sighted within the designated safety zone prior tocommencement of pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the Resident Engineer (or other authorized individual) immediately and follow the mitigation requirements outlined previously (see Mitigation). Monitoring will continue through the pile driving period and will end approximately 30 minutes after pile driving has been completed. Biological observations will be made using binoculars during daylight hours. Infrared (IR) scopes will be used during low light condition for marine mammal monitoring.

In addition to monitoring from boats, during open-water pile driving, monitoring at one control site (harbor seal haul-out sites and the waters surrounding such sites not impacted by the East Span Project's pile driving activities, i.e. Mowry Slough) will be designated and monitored for comparison. Monitoring will be conducted twice a week at the control site whenever open-water pile driving is being conducted. Data on all observations will be recorded and will include items such as species, numbers, behavior, details of any observed disturbances, time of observation, location, and weather. The reactions of marine mammals will be recorded based on the following classifications that are consistent with the Richmond Bridge Harbor Seal survey methodology (for information on the Richmond Bridge authorization, see 68 FR 66076, November 25, 2003): (1) No response, (2) head alert (looks toward the source of disturbance), (3) approach water (but not leave), and (4) flush (leaves haul-out site). The number of marine mammals under each disturbance reaction will be recorded, as well as the time when seal re-haul after a flush.

Airborne noise level measurements have been completed and underwater environmental noise levels will continue to be measured as part of the East Span Project. The purpose of the underwater sound monitoring is to establish the safety zone of 190 dB re 1 micro-Pa RMS (impulse) for pinnipeds and the safety zone of 180 dB re 1 micro-Pa RMS (impulse) for cetaceans. Monitoring will be conducted during the driving of the last half (deepest pile segment) for any given open-water pile. One pile in every other pair of pier groups will be monitored. One reference location will be established at a distance of 100 m (328 ft) from the pile driving. Sound measurements will be taken at the reference location at two depths (a depth near the mid-water column and a depth near the bottom of the water column but at least 1 m (3 ft) above the bottom) during the driving of the last half (deepest pile segment) for any given pile. Two additional in-water spot measurements will be conducted at appropriate depths (near mid water column), generally 500 m (1,640 ft) in two directions either west, east, south or north of the pile driving site will be conducted at the same two depths as the reference location measurements. In cases where such measurements cannot be obtained due to obstruction by land mass, structures or navigational hazards, measurements will be conducted at alternate spot measurement locations. Measurements will be made at other locations either nearer or farther as necessary to establish the approximate distance for the safety zones. Each measuring system shall consist of a hydrophone with an appropriate signal conditioning connected to a sound level meter and an instrument grade digital audiotape recorder (DAT). Overall SPLs shall be measured and reported in the field in dB re 1 micro-Pa RMS (impulse). An infrared range finder will be used to determine distance from the monitoring location to the pile. The recorded data will be analyzed to determine the amplitude, time history and frequency content of the impulse.

Under previous IHAs, CALTRANS submitted weekly marine mammal monitoring reports and in January, 2005, CALTRANS submitted its Marine Mammal and Acoustic Monitoring for the Eastbound Structure. This annual report is available by contacting NMFS (seeADDRESSES) or on the Web athttp://biomitigation.org. A report for the 2005 season will be completed and posted here shortly.

Under the 2006 IHA, coordination with NMFS will occur on a weekly basis, or more often as necessary. During periods with open-water pile driving activity, weekly monitoring reports will be made available to NMFS and the public athttp://biomitigation.org. These weekly reports will include a summary of the previous week's monitoring activities and an estimate of the number of seals and sea lions that may have been taken by Level B harassment as a result of pile driving activities.

In addition, CALTRANS will provide NMFS' Southwest Regional Administrator with a draft final report within 90 days after completion of the westbound Skyway contract and 90 days after completion of the Suspension Span foundations contract. This report should detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed due to pile driving. If comments are received from the Regional Administrator on the draft final report, a final report must be submitted to NMFS within 30 days thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft final report will be considered to be the final report.

In November, 2003, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and, on November 4, 2003, made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A review of the renewal of this IHA has determined that the findings and determinations made in the 2003 EA/FONSI continue to accurately address the impacts on the human environment through the taking of marine mammals by the CALTRANS project. Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement on this action is not required by section 102(2) of the NEPA or its implementing regulations. A copy of the EA and FONSI are available upon request (seeADDRESSES).

On October 30, 2001, NMFS completed consultation under section 7 of the ESA with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on the CALTRANS' construction of a replacement bridge for the East Span of the SF-OBB in California. The finding contained in the Biological Opinion was that the proposed action at the East Span of the SF-OBB is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed anadromous salmonids, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for these species. Listed marine mammals are not expected to be in the area of the action and thus would not be affected. The issuance of this IHA to CALTRANS constitutes an agency action that authorizes an activity that may affect ESA-listed species and, therefore, is subject to section 7 of the ESA. Moreover, as the effects of the activities on listed salmonids were analyzed during a formal consultation between the FHWA and NMFS, and as the underlying action has not changed from that considered in the consultation, the discussion of effects that are contained in the Biological Opinion issued to the FHWA on October 30, 2001, pertains also to this action. In conclusion, NMFS has determined that issuance of an IHA for this activity does not lead to any effects to listed species apart from those that were considered in the consultation on FHWA's action.

For the reasons discussed in this document and in previously identified supporting documents, NMFS has determined that the impact of pile driving and other activities associated with construction of the East Span Project may result in the Level B harassment of small numbers of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and potentially gray whales that inhabit or visit SFB in general and the vicinity of the SF-OBB in particular. While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area around the construction site, may be made by these species to avoid the resultant visual and acoustic disturbance, the availability of alternate areas within SFB and haul-out sites (including pupping sites) and feeding areas within the Bay has led NMFS to determine that this action will have a negligible impact on California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and gray whale populations along the California coast.

In addition, no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated or authorized and Level B harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned previously in this document.

For the reasons previously discussed, NMFS has issued an IHA for a 1-year period to take small numbers of harbor seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoises, and gray whales, by Level B harassment incidental to construction of a replacement bridge for the East Span of the San Franciso-Oakland Bay Bridge in California, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. NMFS has determined that the activity would result in the harassment of only small numbers of harbor seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoises, and possibly gray whales and will have no more than a negligible impact on these marine mammal stocks.

The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.

1. This Settlement Agreement is made by and between the staff (“the staff”) of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“the Commission”) and West Bend Housewares, LLC (“West Bend”), a limited liability corporation, in accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20 of the Commission's Procedures for Investigations, Inspections, and Inquires under the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”). This Settlement Agreement and the incorporated Order settle the staff's allegations set forth below.

2. The Commission is an independent Federal regulatory agency responsible for the enforcement of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084.

3. West Bend is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal corporate offices located at 2845 Wingate Street, West Bend, WI 53095. West Bend is a subsidiary of Focus Products Group, LLC of Vernon Hills, IL. West Bend is a manufacturer and internet retailer of small electrical appliances.

4. Between August 2004 and February 2005, West Bend manufactured and sold nationwide approximately 14,322 10-Cut Automatic Coffeemakers, Item 56870 and Replacement Carafes, Item No. 5815.

5. The 10-Cup Automatic Coffeemakers and the Replacement Carafes are “consumer products” and West Bend is a “manufacturer” and “retailer” of “consumer products,” which are “distributed in commerce” as those terms are defined in sections 3(a)(1), (4), (6), (11), and (12) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4), (6), (11), and (12).

6. The 10-Cup Automatic Coffeemaker, Item No. 56870 is a programmable automatic coffeemaker with a glass carafe that has a plastic black handle. The 10-Cup Replacement Carafe, Item No. 5815 was distributed as a replacement carafe for the 10-Cup Automatic Coffeemaker, Item No. 56870. The carafe's handle can unexpectedly loosen or break, resulting in the carafe falling. If this should occur, consumers may sustain burn injuries from hot coffee or lacerations from broken glass.

7. In October and November 2004, West Bend received several reports from consumers alleging failures of carafe handles. On or about November 30, 2004, West Bend's Product Safety Committee (“safety committee”) met and decided to monitor the carafe failures and to have consumers return the broken handles for further evaluation.

8. In December 2004, West Bend acquired a couple of samples of broken handles for evaluation. A brief evaluation of these handles revealed a problem with the plastic material and/or the processing. West Bend asked the foreign manufacturer to investigate the breakage problem and to make the necessary corrections.

9. On or about February 2, 2005, the foreign manufacturer advised West Bend that the materials used in the handles was “not so good.” At that time, West Bend retained an outside plastics expert who found that the material used in the broken handle did not meet WestBend's specifications. West Bend placed all inventory on hold, but did not report the problem to the Commission.

10. Beginning in April 2005, West Bend audited each container of carafes to determine whether the handles were made in accordance with West Bend's specifications. On or about April 8, 2005, West Bend received a call from a consumer who spilled coffee on his legs and feet when the carafe's handle broke. West Bend sent the consumer a replacement carafe, but still did not report to the Commission.

11. West Bend resumed shipments of the 10-Cup Automatic Coffeemaker, Item No. 56870 or on about April 11, 2005. On May 31, 2005, West Bend received a report from a consumer who allegedly sustained minor burns and cuts when the carafe handle fell off the carafe. West Bend still did not report.

12. West Bend reported to the Commission on or about July 15, 2005. At the time of its report, West Bend had received at least 169 reports of handle breakage and at least two (2) reports of minor burns and/or cuts as a result of the handle breakage.

13. As indicated in paragraphs 4 through 13 above, by February 2005, West Bend obtained information which reasonably supported the conclusion that the 10-Cup Automatic Coffeemaker, Item 56870 and its Replacement Carafe, Item 5815 contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, but failed to report such information in a timely manner as required by section 15(b)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2).

14. By failing to furnish information as required by section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b), West Bend violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4).

15. West Bend committed this failure to timely report to the Commission “knowingly” as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d), subjecting West Bend to civil penalties under section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069.

16. West Bend denies the staff's allegations that it violated the CPSA as set forth in paragraphs 4 through 15 above.

17. West Bend specifically contests and denies that the timing of its voluntary report to the CPSC was “knowingly” in violation of the CPSA's reporting requirements. West Bend is a recently formed small business that had no prior experience dealing with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission when the issues with the carafe arose. West Bend was aware of the CPSA and its reporting regulations. Acting in good faith to interpret and understand those regulations, West Bend did not believe that the issues with the carafe handles presented either a substantial product hazard or an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, as those terms are used in the CPSA and its implementing regulations.

18. By agreeing to this settlement, West Bend does not admit to any of the staff's allegations set forth in the settlement document.

19. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over West Bend under the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084.

20. The parties enter into this Settlement Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Settlement Agreement does not constitute an admission by West Bend or a determination by the Commission that West Bend violated the CPSA's reporting requirements.

21. In settlement of the staff's allegations, West Bend agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000 within twenty (20) calendar days of receiving service of the Final Order of the Commission accepting this Settlement Agreement. This payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury.

22. Upon provisional acceptance of this Agreement by the Commission, this Agreement shall be placed on the public record and shall be published in theFederal Registerin accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written objections within 15 days, the Agreement will be deemed finally accepted on the 16th day after the date it is published in theFederal Register.

23. Upon final acceptance of the Agreement by the Commission and issuance of the Final Order, West Bend knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter (1) to an administrative or judicial hearing, (2) to judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Commission's actions, (3) to a determination by the Commission as to whether West Bend failed to comply with the CPSA and the underlying regulations, (4) to a statement of findings of fact or conclusions of law, and (5) to any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

24. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order.

25. This Settlement Agreement and Order shall apply to, and be binding upon West Bend and each of its successors and assigns.

26. The Commission's Order in this matter is issued under the provisions of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084, and a violation of this Order may subject West Bend to appropriate legal action.

27. This Settlement Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Agreements, understandings, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in this Settlement Agreement and Order may not be used to vary or contradict its terms.

28. This Settlement Agreement shall not be waived, changed, amended, modified, or otherwise altered without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such waiver, change, amendment, modification, or alteration is sought to be enforced, and the approval of the Commission.

29. If, after the effective date hereof, any provision of this Settlement Agreement and Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order, such provisions shall be fully severable. The rest of the Settlement Agreement and Order shall remain in full effect, unless the Commission and West Bend determine that severing the provision materially changes the purpose of the Settlement Agreement and Order.

Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between West Bend Housewares, LLC and the staff ofthe Consumer Product Safety Commission; and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and West Bend Housewares, LLC; and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and Order is in the public interest, it is

Orderedthat the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is

Further Orderedthat upon final acceptance of the Settlement Agreement and Order, West Bend Housewares, LLC shall pay to the Commission a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000 within twenty (20) days after service upon West Bend of this Final Order of the Commission.

Provisionally accepted and Provisional Order issued on the 2nd day of May 2006.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, 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;

• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Propose 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Description:This submission includes one set of instructions for current grantees to submit requests for budget amendment in order to carry out disaster relief efforts. The instructions were approved on the basis of an emergency request submitted on September 29, 2005 and approved October 5, 2005, with OMB Control Number 3045-0113 and expiration date of March 31, 2006. They were approved for an extension on March 17, 2006, with OMB Control Number 3045-0113 and expiration date of August 31, 2006.

Type of Review:Renewal.

Agency:Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title:Requests for Budget Amendment Related to Disaster Relief Efforts.

OMB Number:3045-0113.

Agency Number:None.

Affected Public:States and nonprofit organizations.

Total Respondents:111 for Budget Amendment Requests.

Frequency:Each grantee is only eligible to use these instructions once. The Corporation plans to continue to engage in disaster relief efforts using these instructions after the date that the emergency approval expires, hence this request for regular clearance.

Average Time Per Response:Budget Amendment Request: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Burden Hours:111 hours for Budget Amendment Requests.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):None.

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On April 6, 1999, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA-200 authorizing each of AEPSC's five generation-owning public utility members individually to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada. Order No. EA-200 authorized Appalachian Power Company (APC), Columbus Southern Power Company (CSPC), Indiana Michigan Power Company (IMPC), Kentucky Power Company (KPC) and Ohio Power Company (OPC) individually to export electric energy from the United States to Canada for a two-year term. On May 22, 2001, in Order No. EA-200-A, DOE renewed that authorization for a five-year term and added Central Power Light Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSCO), Southwestern Electric Power Company (SEPC) and West Texas Utilities Company to the list of AEPCS's member companies authorized to export electric energy to Canada.

On April 20, 2006, AEPSC filed an application with DOE on behalf of only seven of its current public utility affiliates (APC, CSPC, IMPC, KPC, OPC, PSCO, and SEPC) for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-200-A for an additional five-year term. The electric energy that each company proposes to export electric to Canada would be either surplus to its own needs or purchased on the wholesale market. Each company authorized to export would individually arrange for the delivery of those exports over the international transmission facilities presently owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, InternationalTransmission Company, Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power Inc., Minnkota Power Cooperative, New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Northern States Power, Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. and Vermont Electric Transmission Company.

Because the existing authority contained in Order No. EA-200-A is due to expire on May 22, 2006, AEPSC has requested expedited treatment of this amendment application so that there would be no gap in export authority. In response to the AEPSC request, DOE has shortened the comment period to 15 days.

Procedural Matters:Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the dates listed above.

Comments on the AEPSC application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-200-B. Additional copies are to be filed directly with John C. Crespo, Esq., American Electric Power, 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, Ohio 43215-2373 AND John R. Lilyestrom, Esq., Hogan Hartson, LLP, 555 13th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20004.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or you may send an email to Odessa Hopkins atodessa.hopkins@hq.doe.gov.

-This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to those companies who manufacture or use surfactants. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

-1.Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0343; FRL-8059-1. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically athttp://www.regulations.govor in hard copy at the OPPT Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280.

-2.Electronic access. You may access thisFederal Registerdocument electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register” listings athttp://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

-The proposed agenda for the SDSI meeting will cover the initiative's scope, participant benefits, and eligibility for recognition. The meeting is open to the public.

-Submit your registration, request to speak, or request for accommodation of a disability, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0343, to the technical person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

- Do not submit any information considered Confidential Business Information (CBI).

-Registration on or before May 29, 2006 is encouraged. However, registration will also be accepted at the meeting. Requests to speak at the meeting must be received on or before May 29, 2006.

Seating at the meeting will be on a first-come basis. Individuals requiring special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access and assistance for the hearing impaired, should contact the technical person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTat least 10 business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Pursuant to the savings clause in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, section 1512, 116 Stat. 2310 (Nov. 25, 2002), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components and offices have relied on preexisting Privacy Act systems of records notices for the maintenance of records that concern training of current and former Departmental employees, contractors, and other individuals.See, e.g.,CS.238, Customs Service Training and Career Individual Development Plans and C.239, Customs Service Training Records, last published on October 18, 2001 at 66 FR 2984.

As part of its efforts to streamline and consolidate its record systems, DHS is establishing a new agency-wide system of records under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) General Training Records. This record system will allow all component parts of DHS to collect and preserve training records under one centralized system. The system will consist of both electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components and offices to maintain records about individual training, including enrollment and participation information, information pertaining to class schedules, programs, and instructors, training trends and needs, testing and examination materials, and assessments of training efficacy. The data will be collected by employee name or other unique personal identifier. The collection and maintenance of this information will assist DHS in meeting its obligation to train its personnel, contractors, and others in order to ensure that the agency mission can be successfully accomplished.

The Privacy Act embodies Fair Information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, uses, and disseminates personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. Individuals may request their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of DHS by complying with DHS Privacy Act regulations, 6 CFR 5.21.

The Privacy Act requires that each agency publish in theFederal Registera description denoting the type and character of each system of records in order to make agency recordkeeping practices transparent, to notify individuals about the use to which personally identifiable information is put, and to assist the individual to more easily find files within the agency.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this revised system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to the Congress.

The Coast Guard invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine whether the collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of the collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments to DMS or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR addressed. Comments to DMS must contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2005-23422]. For your comments to OIRA to be considered, it is best if OIRA receives them on or before June 7, 2006.

Public participation and request for comments:We encourage you to respond to this request for comments by submitting comments and related materials. We will post all comments received, without change, tohttp://dms.dot.gov, and they will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with DOT to use their Docket Management Facility. Please see the paragraph on DOT's “Privacy Act Policy” below.

Submitting comments:If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this request for comment [USCG-2005-23422], indicate the specific section of this document or the ICR to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address underADDRESSES, but please submit them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard and OIRA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change the documents supporting this collection of information or even the underlying requirements in view of them.

Viewing comments and documents:To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go tohttp://dms.dot.govat any time and conduct a simple search using the docket number. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday throughFriday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act:Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy Act Statement of DOT in theFederal Registerpublished on April 11, 2000(65 FR 19477), or you may visithttp://dms.dot.gov.

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has already published the 60-day notice (70 FR 77169, December 29, 2005) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comment.

Title:Alteration of Unreasonably Obstructive Bridges Under the Truman-Hobbs (T-H) Act.

OMB Control Number:1625-0073.

Type of Request:Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public:Public and private owners of bridges over navigable waters of the United States.

Forms:No forms associated with this collection.

Abstract:The collection of information is a request to determine if the bridge is unreasonably obstructive.

Burden Estimate:The estimated burden has increased from 120 hours to 200 hours a year.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1371 (a)(5)(A) and (D)) authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region provided that 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 and comment.

Authorization to incidentally take marine mammals may be granted if the Service finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. Permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings are prescribed as part of the authorization process.

The term “take,” as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, means “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which, (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [the MMPA calls this Level A harassment], or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [the MMPA calls this Level B harassment].”

The terms “small numbers,” “negligible impact,” and “unmitigable adverse impact” are defined in 50 CFR 18.27, the Service's regulations governing take of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to specified activities. “Small numbers” is defined as “a portion of a marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have a negligible impact on that species or stock.” “Negligible impact” is defined 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.” “Unmitigable adverse impact” is defined as “an impact resulting from the specified activity (1) that is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.”

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 where the take will be limited to harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) establishes a 45-day time limit for Service 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, the Service must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. The Service refers to these authorizations as Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs).

On January 13, 2006, the Service received an application from Shell for the taking by harassment of Pacific walrus and polar bears incidental to conducting a seismic survey in the Chukchi Sea. Shell proposes to conduct a marine geophysical (deep seismic) survey program in support of future oil and gas exploration within the proposed Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193. Leasing will occur in 2007. This activity is part of a comprehensive seismic program that includes conducting seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea as well. Incidental take authorization for the Beaufort Sea portion of Shell's program has been proposed under new regulations being proposed at 50 CFR part 18, subpart J (71 FR 14446; March 22, 2006). This overall seismic program is planned for the 2006 open-water season. Shell expects to conduct operations in the Chukchi Sea between July 15 and November 30, 2006. Scheduled transit time for Shell to the operational area is planned to begin June 15, 2006.

On February 10, 2006, the Service received an application from CPAI for the taking by harassment of Pacific walrus and polar bears incidental to conducting a seismic survey in the Chukchi Sea. CPAI also plans to conduct a deep seismic survey program in support of future oil and gas exploration within the proposed Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193. CPAI plans to operate their seismic program between July 1 and November 30, 2006. Scheduled transit time for CPAI to the operational area is planned to begin June 1, 2006.

On February 10, 2006, the Service also received an application from GXT for the taking by harassment of Pacific walrus and polar bears incidental to conducting a seismic survey program in the Chukchi Sea in support of oil and gas exploration. Their seismic program is scheduled to occur between July 1 and November 30, 2006. GXT's project area includes portions of the Lease Sale 193 area as well as areas outside the lease sale but, within the Chukchi Sea.

All applicants are requesting authorization for incidental take by harassment of Pacific walrus and polar bear during seismic surveys occurring in various portions of the Chukchi Sea. Although the applicants' seismic survey programs have minor differences, such as in type (i.e., 2D and 3D), size of arrays, locations, timing, and support, the Service is consolidating the analysis of these separate requests because the activities are substantially the same in nature and the general area of operation requested by the applicants is identical. This also ensures that any overlapping of the effects of these programs will be identified and considered.

Shell and its geophysical (seismic) contractor WesternGeco propose to conduct a deep seismic survey program during the 2006 open-water season on various U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease blocks in the Northern Chukchi Sea (within Lease Sale 193).Shell is requesting an IHA for approximately 5.5 months (June 15 through mid-to late-November 2006). This seismic program would consist of deep seismic surveys conducted from WesternGeco's vessel M/V Gilivar and supported by the M/V Kilabuk for resupply and fueling. The M/V Gilivar is also capable of assisting in ice management operations if needed, but will not deploy seismic acquisition gear.

The general geographic region where the proposed deep seismic survey would occur is the Chukchi Sea MMS OCS Program Area designated as Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193 and the proposed 2002-2007 Chukchi Sea Program Area. Shell has stated that, since the Chukchi deep seismic program would be conducted as a pre-lease activity, the exact locations where operations would occur remain confidential for business competitive reasons. Shell would use the seismic data acquired to determine what leases it would bid on in a forth-coming competitive lease sale. However, seismic acquisition would take place well offshore from the Alaska coast in OCS waters averaging greater than 40 meters (m) (130 feet [ft]) in depth.

Shell has proposed two possible survey scenarios in an effort to maximize its opportunities to acquire seismic information in 2006. Scenario I involves conducting seismic operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the 2006 open-water season. Scenario II involves conducting seismic operations only in the Chukchi Sea during the 2006 open-water season. Authorization for incidental take regarding the proposed seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea under Scenario I will be addressed in a separate request to the Service for a Letter of Authorization.

Under Scenario I, deep seismic surveys in the Chukchi Sea would take place in two phases. Phase one would commence after June 15, 2006, as sea ice coverage conditions allow and would continue through July to early August 2006. Phase two of the Chukchi Sea deep seismic survey would occur after mid-October and continue until such time as sea ice and weather conditions preclude further work, probably sometime in mid-to late-November 2006. Sea ice in this area is dynamic, therefore, the dates represent what might occur under ideal conditions for performing marine seismic work. The actual dates would depend on sea ice and weather conditions as they occur in summer and mid-autumn of 2006 and will not extend beyond the period identified here. Deep seismic data acquisition requires ice-free conditions for air gun and hydrophone streamer deployment and operation; thus both phases of the 2006 deep seismic program would have to occur during ice-free sea conditions. Also, the proposed commencement of the deep seismic survey would not occur earlier than June 15, 2006, even if marine conditions allow, since the timing is designed to ensure that there would be no conflict with the spring bowhead whale migration and the spring Chukchi subsistence hunts conducted by the Alaskan coastal villages of Point Hope, Wainwright, and Barrow.

Under Scenario II, in the event that sea ice prevents travel to the Beaufort Sea area by early August, Shell would continue its seismic acquisition program through the entire open-water season in the Chukchi Sea (June 15 through mid-to late-November 2006). This scenario would approximately double the seismic line miles completed in the Chukchi Sea. Under Scenario I, approximately 5,556 kilometers (km) (3,000 nautical miles [nm]) of seismic acquisition would occur in the Chukchi Sea, whereas under Scenario II, approximately 11,112 km (6,000 nm) of seismic line miles could be completed in the Chukchi Sea during the open-water season if operations in the Beaufort Sea were cancelled.

Source arrays for the 3D survey would be composed of identically tuned Bolt gun sub-arrays operating at 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi) air pressure. The signature produced by an array composed of multiple sub-arrays has the same shape as that produced by a single sub-array while the overall acoustic output of the array is determined by the number of sub-arrays employed. The gun arrangement for the 1,049 cubic inches (in3) sub-array is detailed in Shell's application and is composed of three sub-arrays comprising a total 3,147 (in3) sound source.

CPAI is planning to conduct open-water seismic data acquisition in the Chukchi Sea during the 2006 open-water season. CPAI seeks an IHA for a period of 5 months (July 1 through November 30, 2006). Mobilization of operations will occur in mid-July, and seismic operations are proposed to begin in late July and end in November, depending on ice conditions.

The scope of this application is limited to seismic exploration activities during the open-water season in Federal waters in the OCS of the Chukchi Sea, offshore Alaska. The geographic region of activity encompasses an area of 2,500 to 3,600 square (sq) km in the northeastern Chukchi Sea. The approximate boundaries of the region are within 158°00′ W and 169°00′ W and 69°00′ N and 73°00′ N, with the eastern boundary located parallel to the coast of Alaska, north of Point Hope to Point Barrow, and ranging 40-180 km off the coast. The nearest approximate point of the project to Point Hope is 74 km, Point Lay 90 km, Wainwright 40 km, and Barrow 48 km. Water depths are typically less than 50 m.

The goal of the project is to gather seismic data over 2,500 to 3,600 sq km, weather and ice conditions permitting. CPAI anticipates approximately 90-100 days of work effort with about 30 percent downtime due to constraints, such as weather, ice conditions, and repairs. The operation would be active 24 hours per day. The seismic vessel currently planned for use is the M/V Patriot, owned by WesternGeco. In addition to the primary activity of the seismic vessel, there would be two support vessels. A supply vessel and a fuel bunkering vessel would be used to supply the seismic vessel. The seismic crew would change out by helicopter, and fixed-wing aircraft support may be used to assess ice conditions if necessary.

The energy source for the proposed activity would be air gun array systems towed behind the vessel. There would be 6 to 8 cables approximately 4,000 m in length spaced 100 m apart. Each source array consists of identically tuned Bolt gun sub-arrays operating at 2,000 psi air pressure. The arrays will fire on interleaved 50-m intervals that are designed to focus energy in a downward direction. Two air-gun arrays, each approximately 1,695 in3in size and spaced approximately 50 m apart, would be used. Together, the two arrays would be approximately 3,390 in3in size. The airgun array would fire approximately every 25 m as the vessel travels at 4 to 5 knots. The sub-array is composed of six tuning elements: two 2-gun clusters and four single guns. The clusters have component guns arranged in a fixed side-by-side fashion with the distance between the gun ports set to maximize the bubble suppression effects of clustered guns. A near-field hydrophone is mounted about 1 m above each gun station (one phone is used per cluster), one depth transducer per position is mounted on the gun's ultrabox, and a high pressure transducer is mounted at the aft end of the sub-array to monitor high pressure air supply. All data from the sensors are transmitted to the vessel for input into the onboard systems and recording to tape.

GXT will conduct a marine seismic survey in the area of the MMS Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea. GXT expects the seismic vessel M/V Discoverer II to arrive at Dutch Harbor, Alaska, on or about June 15, 2006, for crew change and re-supply. Depending on ice conditions in the Chukchi Sea, the vessel would mobilize to arrive off Cape Lisburne and begin seismic acquisition as soon as possible. The expected starting date is on or about July 1, 2006.

There are two scenarios being planned dependant upon the seasonal ice conditions encountered in 2006. The primary scenario (and most expected) entails operations beginning in the Chukchi Sea until passage along the Beaufort Sea opens enough to allow seismic acquisition across the entire coast. The vessel would then proceed out of the Chukchi and begin operations within the Beaufort Sea area. Seismic acquisition could begin as early as July 21. The vessel would continue operations until all data are collected, or the new ice begins forming in the fall. It is then expected that the vessel would exit the Beaufort and complete any lines left in the Chukchi Sea until either the program is complete or weather and sea ice preclude further work. The open-water season is not expected to extend past November 30, 2006.

The second scenario would be enacted only if the sea ice does not move offshore in the Beaufort Sea and adequate areas of open water do not exist to allow collection of seismic data in the planned area. In that case, the vessel would continue operations in the Chukchi Sea until all programmed lines are collected. The vessel would then exit the area and transits to Dutch Harbor to demobilize.

GXT will gather data in the Chukchi Sea with the use of ultra-deep 2D lines that oil and gas companies use to better evaluate the evolution of the petroleum system at the basin-level, including identifying source rocks, migration pathways, and play types. In many cases, the availability of geoscience data will extend beyond seismic information to include magnetic, gravity, well log, and electromagnetic information, helping to illustrate the most comprehensive picture of the subsurface as possible.

The 2D data will be collected utilizing a towed, single streamer up to 9,000 m in length along with an airgun array towed directly behind a single vessel. The source vessel will tow a 40 G. gun array with a total discharge volume of 3,980 in3along predetermined lines. The airgun array is discharged on a periodic basis and the streamer records the reflected sound waves. Since the goal is to record data from deep in the subsurface, the recording period runs from 15 to 18 seconds, depending on the area, with the airgun array being discharged approximately every 20 seconds. The array will be towed at approximately 50 m from the stern of theDiscoverer IIat a depth of approximately 8.5 m. As the airgun array is towed along the survey line, the towed hydrophone array receives the reflected signals and transfers the data to the on-board processing system. The 40 G. gun array will consist of 48 G. guns (24 × 2-G. gun pairs). Eight of those guns will not be activated but, will be included in the array and available as spare guns.

The vessel will proceed down a pre-plotted line collecting the data on a continuous basis until the required line is complete. Several segments of the single line may be required due to instrument failure, weather, or any other interruption that may occur. The grid of lines proposed by the applicant covers the entire Chukchi Sea area and ties together known wells, core locations, fault lines, and other geophysical points of interest.

The GXT seismic program will consist of 14 lines totaling 5,793 km (3,570 statute miles) of data acquisition for the Chukchi Sea area. The program will be based on a large grid of lines orientated to connect previous well locations, core sample locations, and geological structures in the sub-surface. Lines will be chosen based on factors such as, subsistence hunting, ice movement, and areas of geophysical importance. It is anticipated that all lines would be acquired under either of the two scenarios proposed. There is no plan to add mileage to this total, so the season would be complete for the Chukchi region when all 14 lines have been acquired.

The geographic area covered by the request is the OCS of the Chukchi Sea adjacent to western Alaska. This area includes the waters and seabed of the Chukchi Sea, which encompasses all waters north of the Bering Strait that are east of the U.S.-Russia Convention Line of 1807, west of a north-south line at Point Barrow, and within 200 miles to the north of Point Barrow. This delineation of the Chukchi Sea includes the Chukchi Seas Lease Sale 193, scheduled for leasing in 2007.

The Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) is represented by a single stock of animals that inhabits the shallow continental shelf waters of the Bering and Chukchi seas. The population ranges across the international boundaries of the United States and Russia, and both nations share common interests with respect to the conservation and management of this species.

The distribution of Pacific walrus varies markedly with the seasons. During the late winter breeding season, walrus are found in areas of the Bering Sea where open leads, polynas, or areas of broken pack-ice occur. Significant winter concentrations are normally found in the Gulf of Anadyr, the St. Lawrence Island Polyna, and in an area south of Nunivak Island. In the spring and early summer, most of the population follows the retreating pack-ice northward into the Chukchi Sea; however, several thousand animals, primarily adult males, remain in the Bering Sea, utilizing coastal haulouts during the ice-free season. During the summer months, walrus are widely distributed across the shallow continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea. Significant summer concentrations are normally found in the unconsolidated pack-ice west of Point Barrow, and along the northern coastline of Chukotka in the vicinity of Wrangel Island. As the ice edge advances southward in the fall, walrus reverse their migration and re-group on the Bering Sea pack-ice.

Several decades of intense commercial exploitation in the late 1800s and early 1900s left the population severely depleted. Fayet al.(1997) reviewed the results of aerial surveys conducted between 1960 and 1985 and concluded that the population had increased from 50,000-100,000 animals in the late 1950s to more than 250,000 animals by 1985. They attributed this rapid population growth to hunting restrictions enacted in the United States and Russia that reduced the size of the commercial harvest and provided protection to female walrus and calves. Information concerning population size and trend after 1985 is less certain. An aerial survey flown in 1990 produced a population estimate of 201,039 animals; however, large confidence intervals associated with that estimate precluded any conclusionsconcerning population trend (Gilbertet al.1992). The current size and trend of the Pacific walrus population are unknown, but the 1990 figure is considered conservative. In 2006, the Service and USGS, in partnership with Russian scientists, will conduct a range-wide survey to estimate population size.

Walrus rely on floating pack-ice as a substrate for resting and giving birth. Walrus generally require ice thicknesses of 50 centimeters (cm) or more to support their weight. Although walrus can break through ice up to 20 cm thick, they usually occupy areas with natural openings and are not found in areas of extensive, unbroken ice. Thus, their concentrations in winter tend to be in areas of divergent ice flow or along the margins of persistent polynas. Concentrations in summer tend to be in areas of unconsolidated pack-ice, usually within 100 km of the leading edge of the ice pack. The juxtaposition of ice over appropriate depths for feeding is especially important for female walrus with dependent young that may not be capable of deep diving or of long-term exposure in the water. Walrus resting on the ice are passively transported to other feeding areas, which may help to prevent local depletions of their prey resource.

When suitable pack-ice is not available, walrus haul out to rest on land. Isolated sites, such as barrier islands, points, and headlands, are most frequently occupied. Social factors, learned behavior, and proximity to their prey base are also thought to influence the location of haulout sites. Traditional walrus haulout sites in the eastern Chukchi Sea include Cape Thompson, Cape Lisburne and Icy Cape. In recent years, the Cape Lisburne haulout site has seen regular use in late summer. Numerous haulouts exist along the northern coastline of Chukotka, including Wrangel and Herald islands, which are considered important hauling grounds in September, especially in years when the pack-ice retreats far to the north.

Although capable of diving to deeper depths, walrus are for the most part found in shallow waters of 100 m or less, possibly because of higher productivity of their benthic foods in shallower water. They feed almost exclusively on benthic invertebrates although Native hunters have also reported incidences of walrus preying on seals. Prey densities are thought to vary across the continental shelf according to sediment type and structure. Preferred feeding areas are typically composed of sediments of soft, fine sands. Foraging trips may last for several days, during which time they dive to the bottom nearly continuously. Most foraging dives to the bottom last between 5 and 10 minutes, with a relatively short (1-2 minute) surface interval. The intensive tilling of the sea floor by foraging walrus is thought to have significant influence on the ecology of the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Foraging activity recycles large quantities of nutrients from the sea floor back into the water column, provides food for scavenger organisms, and contributes greatly to the diversity of the benthic community.

Walrus are long-lived animals with low rates of reproduction. Females reach sexual maturity at 4-9 years of age. Males become fertile at 5-7 years of age; however, they are usually unable to compete for mates until they reach full physical maturity at 15-16 years of age. Breeding occurs between January and March in the pack-ice of the Bering Sea. Calves are usually born in late April or May the following year during the northward migration from the Bering Sea to the Chukchi Sea. Calves are capable of entering the water shortly after birth, but tend to haulout frequently, until their swimming ability and blubber layer are well developed. Calves weigh about 63 kg (139 lb) at birth. Walrus calves accompany their mother from birth and are usually not weaned for 2 years or more. Females with newborn young often join together to form large nursery herds. Summer distribution of females and young walrus is closely tied to the movements of the pack-ice relative to feeding areas. Females give birth to one calf every two or more years. This reproductive rate is much lower than other pinnipeds; however, some walrus may live to age 35-40 and remain reproductively active until relatively late in life.

Walrus are extremely social and gregarious animals. They tend to travel in groups and haulout onto ice or land in groups. Walrus spend approximately one-third of their time hauled out onto land or ice. Hauled-out walrus tend to lie in close physical contact with each other. Youngsters often lie on top of the adults. The size of the hauled out groups can range from a few animals up to several thousand individuals.

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are known to prey on walrus calves, and killer whales (Orcinus orca) have been known to take all age classes of animals. Predation levels are thought to be highest near terrestrial haulout sites where large aggregations of walrus can be found; however, few observations exist for off-shore environs.

Pacific walrus have been hunted by coastal Natives in Alaska and Chukotka for thousands of years. Exploitation of walrus by Europeans has also occurred in varying degrees since first contact. Presently, walrus hunting in Alaska and Chukotka is restricted to meet the subsistence needs of aboriginal peoples. The Service, in partnership with the Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC) and the Association of Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters of Chukotka, administers subsistence harvest monitoring programs in Alaska and Chukotka. Harvest mortality over the past 5 years (2000-2005) is estimated at 5,458 walrus per year (Table 1). This mortality estimate includes corrections for under-reported harvest and struck and lost animals.

Intraspecific trauma is also a known source of injury and mortality. Disturbance events can cause walrus to stampede into the water and have been known to result in injuries and mortalities. The risk of stampede-related injuries increases with the number of animals hauled out. Calves and young animals at the perimeter of these herds are particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries.

Walrus are seasonably abundant in the Chukchi Sea and Lease Sale 193 Area. Their distribution is largely influenced by the extent of the seasonal pack-ice. In May and June, most of the population migrates through the Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea. Walrus tend to migrate into the Lease Sale Area along lead systems that develop along the northwest coast of Alaska. Walrus are expected to be closely associated with the southern edge of the seasonal pack-ice during the proposed operating season. By July, large groups of walrus, up to several thousand animals, can be found along the edge of the pack-ice between Icy Cape and Point Barrow. During August, the edge of the pack-ice generally retreats northward to about 71°N, but in light ice years, the ice edge may retreat beyond 76°N. The sea ice normally reaches its minimum (northern) extent in September. It is unclear how walrus respond in years when the sea ice retreats beyond the relatively shallow continental shelf waters. At least some animals are thought to migrate west towards Chukotka, while others have been observed hauling out along the shoreline between Point Barrow and Cape Lisburne. The pack-ice rapidly advances southward in October, and most animals are thought to have returned to the Bering Sea by early November.

A recent abundance estimate for the number of walrus present in the Chukchi Sea, including the Lease Sale 193 Area during the proposed operating season is lacking. Johnsonet al.(1980) estimated 101,213 walrus hauled-out onto Chukchi Sea pack-ice, east of 172°30′ W, in September 1980. Gilbert (1989) estimated 62,177 walrus were distributed in the Chukchi Sea pack-ice in the eastern Chukchi Sea in September 1985. Gilbertet al.(1992) estimated 16,489 walrus were distributed in the Chukchi sea pack-ice between Wrangel Island and Point Barrow in September 1990, but the authors also noted that the pack-ice was distributed well beyond the continental shelf at the time of the survey. These abundance estimates are all considered conservative because no corrections were made for walrus in water (not visible) at the time of the surveys.

Polar bears occur throughout the Arctic. In Alaska, they have been observed as far south in the eastern Bering Sea as St. Matthew Island and the Pribilof Islands, but they are most commonly found within 180 miles of the Alaskan coast of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, from the Bering Strait to the Canadian border. Two stocks occur in Alaska: (1) The Bering-Chukchi Seas stock; and (2) the Southern Beaufort Sea stock. The Chukchi/Bering seas stock is defined as polar bears inhabiting the area as far west as the eastern portion of the Eastern Siberian Sea, as far east as Point Barrow, and extending into the Bering Sea, with its southern boundary determined by the extent of annual ice. The world population estimate of polar bears ranges from 20,000-25,000 individuals (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 2006). The Southern Beaufort Sea stock estimate is 2,200 animals. Previous population estimates have put the Chukchi/Bering sea population at 2,000 to 5,000; however, currently, a reliable population estimate is not available for the Bering-Chukchi Sea polar bear stock.

Polar bears of the Chukchi Sea are subject to the movements and coverage of the pack-ice. The most extensive north-south movements of polar bears are associated with the spring and fall ice movement. For example, during the 2006 ice-covered season, numerous bears radio-collared in the Beaufort Sea were located in the Chukchi and Bering Seas as far south as 59° latitude. Summer movements tend to be less dramatic due to the reduction of ice habitat. Summer distribution is somewhat dependent upon the location of the ice front; however, polar bears are accomplished swimmers and are often seen on floes separated from the main pack-ice. Therefore, bears can appear at any time in what can be called “open water.” The summer ice pack can be quite disjunct and segments can be driven by wind great distances carrying polar bears with them. Bears from both stocks overlap in their distribution around Point Barrow and can move into surrounding areas depending on ice conditions.

Polar bears spend most of their time in nearshore, shallow waters over the productive continental shelf associated with the shear zone and the active ice adjacent to the shear zone. Sea ice and food availability are two important factors affecting the distribution of polar bears.

Although insufficient data exist to accurately quantify polar bear denning along the Alaskan Chukchi Sea coast, dens in the area are less concentrated than for other areas in the Arctic. The majority of denning of Chukchi Sea polar bears occurs on Wrangel Island, Herald Island, and certain locations on the northern Chukotka coast. Females without dependent cubs breed in the spring. Females can initiate breeding at 5 to 6 years of age. Females with cubs do not mate. Pregnant females enter maternity dens by late November, and the young are usually born in late December or early January. Only pregnant females den for an extended period during the winter; other polar bears may excavate temporary dens to escape harsh winter winds. An average of two cubs are usually born, and after giving birth, the female and her cubs remain in the den where the cubs are nurtured until they can walk. Reproductive potential (intrinsic rate of increase) is low. The average reproductive interval for a polar bear is 3 to 4 years, and a female polar bear may produce about 8 to 10 cubs in her lifetime; 50 to 60 percent of the cubs will survive. Female bears can be quite sensitive to disturbances during this denning period.

In late March or early April, the female and cubs emerge from the den. If the mother moves young cubs from the den before they can walk or withstand the cold, mortality to the cubs may increase. Therefore, it is thought that successful denning, birthing, and rearing activities require a relativelyundisturbed environment. Radio and satellite telemetry studies elsewhere indicate that denning can occur in multi-year pack-ice and on land.

Greater than 90 percent of a polar bear's diet is ringed seals (Phoca hispida). Bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) and walrus calves are hunted occasionally. Polar bears opportunistically scavenge marine mammal carcasses, and there are reports of polar bears killing beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) trapped in the ice. Polar bears are also known to eat nonfood items including styrofoam, plastic, antifreeze, and hydraulic and lubricating fluids.

Polar bears hunt seals along leads and other areas of open water, or by waiting at a breathing hole, or by breaking through the roof of a seal's lair. Lairs are excavated in snow drifts on top of the ice. Bears also stalk seals in the spring when they haul out on the ice in warm weather. The relationship between ice type and bear distribution is as yet unknown, but it is suspected to be related to seal availability.

Both fur and fat are important to polar bears for insulation in air and water. Cubs-of-the-year must accumulate a sufficient layer of fat in order to maintain their body temperature when immersed in water. It is unknown to what extent young cubs can withstand exposure in water before they are threatened by hypothermia. Polar bears groom their fur to maintain its insulative value. Polar bears are long-lived (up to 30 years) and have no natural predators, and they do not appear to be prone to death by diseases or parasites. Cannibalism by adult males on cubs and occasionally on other bears is known to occur.

The most significant source of mortality is man. Before the MMPA was passed in 1972, polar bears were taken by sport hunters and residents. Between 1925 and 1972, the mean reported kill was 186 bears per year. Seventy-five percent of these were males, as cubs and females with cubs were protected. Since 1972, only Alaska Natives have been allowed to hunt polar bears for their subsistence uses or for handicraft and clothing items for sale. The Native hunt occurs without restrictions on sex, age, or number provided that the population is not determined to be depleted. From 1980 to 2005, the total annual harvest for Alaska averaged 101 bears: 64 percent from the Chukchi Sea and 36 percent from the Beaufort Sea. Barrow, Point Hope, Point Lay, and Wainwright are communities within the area potentially affected by seismic activities. The total harvest of bears by these communities during the 10-year period of 1995 to 2005 was as follows: Barrow (228 bears), Point Hope (136 bears), Point Lay (25 bears), and Wainwright (77 bears). Table 2 provides long-term and annual data on polar bear harvests for the villages within the area. Bears are generally harvested between the months of January to May, with May the month when most bears are harvested. Annually, the lowest numbers of polar bears are harvested between June and September.

Seismic exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea have the potential to impact walrus in a number of ways. Air and vessel traffic may cause herds to stampede. Noise from air traffic, seismic surveys, icebreakers, and supply ships may displace individuals and herds. The quantity and quality of walrus prey could be affected by contamination of the benthos from operational petroleum spills.

Disturbances caused by vessel and air traffic may cause walrus groups to abandon land or ice haulouts. Severe disturbance events could result in trampling injuries or cow-calf separations, both of which are potentially fatal.

Open-water seismic exploration produces underwater sounds, typically with airgun arrays. Although the hearing sensitivity of walrus is poorly known, some source levels are thought to be high enough to cause temporary hearing loss in other species of pinnipeds. Therefore, it is possible that walrus within the 190-decibel (dB re 1 μPa) safety radius sound cone of seismic activities (Industry standard safety criterion for seals, which operates as the limit for potential injury) could suffer temporary shifts in hearing threshold and temporary hearing loss. Conversely, the 160-decibel (dB re 1 μPa) sound level is the limit of assumed behavioral harassment where animals may react to the sound source by avoiding the area.

Noise from air traffic, vessel traffic, and seismic operations resulting in harassment has the potential to disturb or displace walrus up to several kilometers from the sound source. Potential effects of prolonged or repeated disturbances include displacement from preferred feeding areas, increased stress levels, increased energy expenditure, masking of communication, and the impairment of thermoregulation of neonates that spend too much time in the water.

The response of walrus to noise disturbance stimuli is highly variable, from avoidance to tolerance. Studies have shown that pinnipeds appear to be less responsive to noise than other marine mammals. Anecdotal observations by walrus hunters and researchers suggest that males tend to be more tolerant of disturbances than females and individuals tend to be more tolerant than groups. Females with dependent calves are considered least tolerant of disturbances. Walrus in the water are thought to be more tolerant to disturbance stimuli than those hauled out.

Quantitative research on the sensitivity of walrus to noise has been limited because no audiograms (a test to determine the range of frequencies and minimum hearing threshold) have been done on walrus. Hearing sensitivity is assumed to be within the 13 Hz and 1,200 Hz range of their own vocalizations. Walrus hunters and researchers have also noted that walrus tend to react to the presence of humansand machines at greater distances from upwind approaches than from downwind approaches, suggesting that odor may also be a stimulus for a flight response. The visual acuity of walrus is thought to be less than for other species of pinnipeds.

Reactions to aircraft are thought to vary with aircraft type, range, and flight pattern, as well as walrus age, sex, and group size. Fixed-winged aircraft are less likely to elicit a response than helicopter overflights. Walrus are particularly sensitive to changes in engine noise and are more likely to stampede when planes turn or fly low overhead. Researchers conducting aerial surveys for walrus in sea ice habitats have observed little reaction to aircrafts above 1,000 ft (305 m).

The reaction of walrus to vessel traffic appears to be dependent upon vessel type, distance, speed, and previous exposure to disturbances. Underwater noise from vessel traffic in the Chukchi Sea may “mask” ordinary communication between individuals. Other factors, such as weather and length of time hauled out, may also contribute to the response. Ice management operations are expected to have the greatest potential for disturbances since these operations typically require the vessel to accelerate, reverse direction, and turn rapidly, activities that maximize propeller cavitation and resulting noise levels. However, researchers on board an icebreaker during ice management operations observed little to no reaction of hauled-out walrus groups beyond 0.5 mile (800 m). Furthermore, ship-board monitoring and mitigation measures for ice management, such as “ice scouting,” will indirectly limit encounters between vessels and walrus hauled out on ice floes.

Seismic operations are expected to create significantly more noise than general vessel and icebreaker traffic; however, there are no data available to evaluate the potential response of walrus to seismic operations. Studies in the Beaufort Sea based on visual monitoring from seismic vessels show that pinnipeds exhibit minimal avoidance of airguns, and slight changes in behavior. These studies show that pinnipeds frequently do not avoid the area within a few hundred meters of an operating airgun array. However, visual studies have their limitations and initial work suggests that avoidance and other behavioral reactions may be stronger than evident to date from visual studies.

For the purpose of this IHA, the Service will consider sound levels greater than 160 dB as the criterion for the onset of behavioral harassment, which is based on criteria developed for other pinniped species. Marine mammal monitoring programs are expected to provide further insight to the response of walrus to various seismic operations from which future mitigative conditions can be developed.

Seismic exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea may affect polar bears in a number of ways. Seismic ships and icebreakers may be physical obstructions to polar bear movements, although these impacts are of short-term and localized effect. Noise, sights, and smells produced by exploration activities may repel or attract bears, either disrupting their natural behavior or endangering them by threatening the safety of seismic personnel.

Little research has been conducted on the effects of noise on polar bears. Polar bears are curious and tend to investigate novel sights, smells, and possibly noises. Noise produced by seismic activities could elicit several different responses in polar bears. Noise may act as a deterrent to bears entering the area of operation, or noise could potentially attract curious bears. Underwater noises produced by exploration are probably not a relevant form of disturbance because bears spend most of their time on the ice or at the surface of the water. Polar bears normally swim with their heads above the surface, where underwater noises are weak or undetectable. Polar bears are known to run from sources of noise and the sight of vessels or icebreakers and aircraft, especially helicopters. The effects of fleeing from aircraft may be minimal if the event is short and the animal is otherwise unstressed. On a warm spring or summer day, a short run may be enough to overheat a well-insulated polar bear. Likewise, fleeing from a working icebreaker may have minimal effects for a healthy animal on a cool day.

In the Chukchi Sea, during the open-water season, polar bears spend the majority of their time on pack-ice, which limits the chance of impacts from human and industry activities. Occasionally, polar bears can be found in open water, miles from the ice edge or ice floes.

Vessel traffic could result in short-term behavioral disturbance to polar bears. During the open-water season, most polar bears remain offshore in the pack-ice and are not typically present in the area of vessel traffic. If a ship is surrounded by ice, it is more likely that curious bears will approach. Any on-ice activities required by exploration activities create the opportunity for bear'human interactions. In relatively ice-free waters, polar bears are less likely to approach ships, although bears may be encountered on ice floes. For example, during the late 1980s, at the Belcher exploration drilling site in the Beaufort Sea, in a period of little ice, a large floe threatened the drill rig at the site. After the floe was moved by an icebreaker, workers noticed a female bear with a cub-of-the-year and a lone adult swimming nearby. It was assumed these bears had been disturbed from the ice floe.

Ships and icebreakers may act as physical obstructions in the spring during the start-up period for exploration if they transit through a restricted lead system, such as the Chukchi Polynya. Polynyas are important habitat for marine mammals, which makes them important hunting areas for polar bears. Ship traffic in these ice conditions may intercept or alter movements of bears. A similar situation could occur in the fall when the pack-ice begins to expand.

Routine aircraft traffic should have little to no effect on polar bears; however, extensive or repeated overflights of fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters could disturb polar bears. Behavioral reactions of polar bears should be limited to short-term changes in behavior that would have no long-term impact on individuals and no impacts on the polar bear population.

Pacific walrus are a valuable subsistence resource utilized by coastal Alaska Natives. For thousands of years, walrus hunting has been an important source of food and raw materials for equipment and handicrafts. Today, walrus hunting remains an important part of the culture and economy of many coastal villages in Alaska. The communities most likely to be impacted by the proposed activities are Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow.

Point Hope hunters typically begin their hunt in late May and June as walrus migrate north into the Lease Sale 193 Area. The sea ice is usually well off shore of Point Hope by July and does not bring animals back into the range of hunters until late August and September. Between 2000 and 2006, the average annual reported harvest at Point Hope was 11 animals per year (Table 3).

Walrus hunting in Point Lay occurs primarily in July. Point Lay hunters reported an average of 6.2 walrus per year between 2000 and 2004 (Table 3).

Wainwright residents hunt walrus from June through August as the ice retreats northward. Walrus are plentiful in the pack-ice near the village this time of year. Wainwright hunters have consistently harvested more walrus than any other subsistence community on the North Slope. The village averaged 62.2 animals per year for 2000-2004 (Table 3).

Barrow is the northernmost community near the project area. Most walrus hunting occurs from June through September, peaking in August, when the land-fast ice breaks up and hunters can access the walrus by boat as they migrate north on the retreating pack-ice. The average annual walrus harvest for Barrow from 2000 to 2004 was 31.8 animals (Table 3).

Any activity that displaces walrus beyond the range of coastal hunters has the potential to adversely impact subsistence harvests in these communities. Walrus hunting may occur anywhere along the Chukchi Sea coastline from Cape Lisburne to Point Barrow. Walrus hunting from these communities is generally limited to conditions when sea ice occurs within the range of small hunting boats, typically less than 30 miles from shore.

Little information is available to predict the effects of offshore activities on subsistence walrus hunting; however, walrus hunting occurs primarily in pack-ice and it is unlikely that open-water seismic activities would have a significant impact on subsistence harvest opportunities. As described in the section on standard operational conditions, the Service will require Shell, CPAI, and GXT to consult with affected communities and the EWC, as appropriate, to identify measures to minimize any potential impact to subsistence hunters in the affected communities.

Depending upon ice conditions, the subsistence harvest of polar bears can occur year-round in the northern Chukchi Sea villages, with peaks in the spring and winter. The period with the lowest harvest of bears occurs in June and July. Hunting success varies considerably from year to year because of variable ice and weather conditions.

Little information is available for predicting the effects of offshore activities on subsistence polar bear hunting in the Chukchi Sea; however, direct conflicts are unlikely to occur between polar bear hunters and seismic activities because the timing of polar bear hunting occurs primarily during the winter and spring when pack-ice is present nearshore and the seismic activities will occur in the summer and fall open-water seasons. As described in the section on standard operational conditions, the Service will require Shell, CPAI, and GXT to consult with affected communities, as appropriate, to identify measures to be taken to minimize any potential impact to subsistence hunters in the affected communities.

Our findings of negligible impact were based on the total level of activity described by each applicant and the Service's analysis of the effects of all activities. In making this finding, we considered the following: (1) The distribution of the species; (2) the biological characteristics of the species; (3) the nature of seismic programs; (4) the potential effects of seismic programs on the species; and (5) the documented impacts of seismic activities on the species.

Vessels associated with seismic activities plan to travel in open water to avoid ice floes, which is where walrus are likely to be found. Furthermore, walrus are not uniformly distributed across the proposed study area. The proposed seismic operations would not be concentrated in any location for extended periods. Therefore, most of the proposed activities would occur in areas of open water where walrus densities are expected to be relatively low. Based on the proposed activities and the distribution of walrus, we find that takes are likely to be limited to harassment of a relatively small number of animals and of relatively short-term in duration. Therefore, the proposed activities are not reasonably likely to adversely affect the Pacific walrus or the Pacific walrus stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

The number of polar bears present in the open water of the Chukchi Sea during the time of seismic activity will also be minimal. Individual polar bears may be observed in the open water during seismic activities, but the majority of the population will be found on the pack-ice during this time of year and, again, seismic activities avoid ice floes and the pack-ice edge. The Service anticipates that potential impacts of seismic activities on polar bears would be limited to short-term changes in behavior and would have no long-term impact on individuals or impacts to the polar bear population. Therefore, we find that the proposed seismic activities are not reasonably likely to adversely affect polar bears or the Chukchi polar bear stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

Based on our review of these factors, we conclude that, while incidental harassment of polar bears and walrus is reasonably likely to or reasonably expected to occur as a result of proposed activities, the overall impact would be negligible on polar bear and Pacific walrus populations. In addition, we find that any takes are likely to be limited to Level B harassment of a relatively small number of animals and of relatively short-term in duration. Furthermore, we do not expect the anticipated level of harassment from these proposed activities to affect the rates of recruitment or survival of Pacific walrus and polar bear populations.

We also considered the specific Congressional direction in balancing the potential for a significant impact with the likelihood of that event occurring. The specific Congressional direction that describes evaluating the probability of occurrence with the level of impact follows:

Our finding applies to the proposed seismic programs by Shell, CPAI, and GXT that would occur in the Chukchi Sea region during the 2006 open-water season. If the proposed activities are authorized, standard operational conditions would be attached to each authorization. These conditions minimize interference with normal breeding, feeding, and migration patterns.

Based on the results of harvest data, including affected villages, the number of animals harvested, the season of the harvests, and the location of hunting areas, we find that the effects of the proposed seismic activities in the Chukchi Sea region would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of polar bears and Pacific walrus for taking for subsistence uses during the period of the activities. In making this finding, we considered the following: (1) Records on subsistence harvest from the Service's Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program (historical data regarding the timing and location of harvests) and (2) anticipated effects of the applicants' proposed activities on subsistence hunting.

Most subsistence walrus hunting occurs in pack-ice areas, which are areas typically avoided by seismic operations. Although walrus hunters may encounter support vessels and aircraft in open-water areas, these interactions are expected to be limited in area and duration and are not expected to affect overall hunting success. Therefore, we find that the proposed seismic activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of walrus for subsistence uses.

Only a small fraction of the polar bear harvest occurs during the open-water season. In addition, most polar bears are harvested outside of the area that would be covered by this authorization. Because the polar bear is hunted almost entirely during the ice-covered season, it is unlikely that open-water seismic activities would have any effect on the harvest of that species. The Service anticipates that the effect of these seismic activities on the availability of polar bears to subsistence hunters would be very low if it were to occur at all. Therefore, we find that the proposed seismic activities would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of polar bears for subsistence uses.

The following measures will ensure that the least practicable impact on Pacific walrus and polar bear and on the availability of these species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. These measures are not necessary to arrive at our conclusion that these activities will have a negligible impact on these species or stocks or our conclusion that the activities will not have unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species for subsistence purposes.

Conditions that will be required to minimize the potential for harassment include the following:

(1) Seismic and support vessels must observe a 0.5-mile (800-m) exclusion zone around walrus and polar bears observed on land or ice.

(2) Aircraft will be required to maintain a 1,000-ft (300-m) minimum altitude within 0.5 mile (800-m) of hauled out walrus and polar bears.

(3) Seismic operations will cease if walrus are sighted within a 190 dB acoustical safety radius.

(4) No seismic activities will take place in the Chukchi Sea before June 1, 2006. This prohibition would limit interference from seismic activities when marine mammals are concentrated in association with the spring lead system. This condition considers transit to and from activity sites as part of seismic activity, especially when support vessels mobilize into the Chukchi Sea for the purpose of seismic exploration.

(5) Each activity would require a final walrus/polar bear monitoring plan that is approved by the Service. The purpose of the plan would be to monitor the effects of the activity on polar bears and walrus in the areas of seismic exploration. The monitoring plan would be approved by the Service prior to issuance of the incidental harassment authorization and will be incorporated as a condition of the IHA. These plans would require ship-board trained marine mammal observers. During seismic operations, on-board marine mammal observers will monitor the zone of ensonification (i.e., the area around the seismic vessel exposed to certain sound propagation levels from the source arrays) for polar bears and walrus. If a polar bear or walrus is sighted in the ensonification zone, operations will cease until animals move out of the zone.

(6) Each applicant will be required to develop a Service-approved site-specific polar bear and walrus interaction plan prior to initiation of activities. These plans outline the contingency steps that the applicant will take, such as the chain of command for reporting and responding to polar bear or walrus sightings.

(7) Ice management mitigation measures, i.e., “ice scouting,” such as radar, satellite imagery, and reconnaissance flights using scheduled aircraft to monitor ice movement in the projected survey areas 24 to 48 hours prior to seismic activity, may be required to be instituted during activities in response to ice movement. These measures have a dual purpose since they are important for the proper acquisition of seismic data, as well as delineating the presence and abundance of polar bears and walrus in the area. They will also serve to limit the distance to ice due to seismic program protocols and thus limit the potential for walrus and polar bear encounters.

Conditions that will be required to minimize potential impacts on subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting include the following:

(1) Seismic activity will be deferred during the spring migration through opening leads. This will ensure that the leads have deteriorated and that there is ample open water to allow walrus free movement to avoid support traffic and transit time of seismic vessels. Seismic activities would be confined to the open-water season, which will not exceed the period of July 1 to November 30. This should allow the villages to participate in subsistence hunts for polar bears without interference and to minimize impacts to walrus during migration.

(2) No seismic activities will occur within a 40-mile radius of affected communities. This condition will limit potential interactions with walrus hunters in near-shore environments.

(3) Applicants will be required to contact and consult with the communities of Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow to identify any additional measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts to subsistence hunters in these communities. Prior to receipt of an IHA, applicants must provide evidence to the Service that, if warranted, a Plan of Cooperation (POC) has been presented to the subsistence communities. A POC will be developed if there is concern from the community that the activities will impact subsistence uses of Pacificwalrus and polar bears. The POC must address how applicants will work with the affected Native communities and what actions will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence hunting of walrus and polar bear. The Service will review the POC to ensure any potential adverse effects on the availability of the animals are minimized.

A plan for monitoring the effects of seismic exploration on polar bears and walrus that has been reviewed and approved by the Service is required of all applicants receiving an IHA. In addition, the Service recognizes that other opportunities for the Service, and possibly the applicant, to cooperatively conduct research that may resolve other deficiencies in knowledge of walrus and polar bear populations and habitat requirements may occur outside of the IHA process. Such research would be related to acquiring data necessary to understand the effects of exploratory activities for oil and gas, including their effects on walrus and polar bear.

The purpose of monitoring programs is to determine short-term and long-term direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of authorized activities on polar bears and walrus in the Chukchi Sea. Plans must identify the methods that will be used to determine and assess the effect on the movements, behavior, and habitat use of polar bears and walrus in response to seismic activity.

Monitoring programs may be required to answer some basic biological questions as a necessary step toward understanding the relationships between the proposed activity and the species' survival, productivity, and habitat requirements. The basic elements of the monitoring programs are to determine and report when, where, how and how many marine mammals, by species, age/size, and sex, are taken in the course of authorized exploration activities and to verify the nature and level of take. Methods and techniques to detect possible longer-term changes and trends in abundance, distribution, and productivity of populations of affected species should be developed. However, the responsibility for developing these methods is not necessarily that of the applicant.

The applicant has a responsibility for conducting monitoring necessary to verify the level of take. The Service is responsible, under the MMPA, for assessing the level of incidental taking and determining if the taking exceeds the anticipated level and has greater than a negligible impact on walrus and polar bear populations. The Service is also responsible for determining if the taking exceeds the anticipated level and has an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these species for subsistence uses.

Monitoring methods that might be used include, but are not limited to, aerial surveys, shipboard observations, acoustic studies, and monitoring radio-tagged walrus and polar bears in the vicinity of the activity.

At its discretion, the Service may place an observer on board seismic ships, icebreakers, support ships, and aircraft to monitor the impact of seismic exploration activities on walrus and polar bears and to observe other activities authorized by a scientific research permit or IHA.

The Service will coordinate monitoring plans for walrus and polar bears developed by applicants so that information is gathered in a consistent manner. The Service also will coordinate with other agencies that require monitoring programs (NMFS, MMS, and the State of Alaska) to avoid duplication of effort and data collection for the same exploration activity and applicant.

Development and participation in a cooperative research program is not a requirement for obtaining an IHA. However, the Service encourages research of polar bears and walrus, such as projects funded and supported by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Holders of IHAs and the Service will meet annually to discuss monitoring goals and results. This type of program could create opportunities to collect valuable information that would provide additional insight into the relationship between seismic activities in support of the oil and gas industry and the basic biological requirements of the two species of concern.

Polar bear and walrus observation forms will be provided by the Service to the applicants. Any polar bear or walrus sighting that occurs during the individual seismic programs must be submitted to the Service within 24 hours of the animal sighting. An annual report must be submitted to the Service within 90 days of completing the year's activities. This report will provide dates and locations of survey movements and other operational activities, weather conditions, dates and locations of any activities related to monitoring the effects on marine mammals, and the methods, results, and interpretation of all monitoring activities, including estimates of the level and type of take, numbers of each species observed, direction of movement of observed individuals, and any observed changes or modifications in behavior or travel direction.

The Service has determined that no species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, would be affected by issuing an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to the applicants for the proposed open-water seismic surveys.

The information provided in an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by the Service for 2006 open-water Chukchi Sea seismic activities has led the Service to conclude that implementation of either the preferred alternative or other alternatives identified in the EA would not have a significant impact on the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement was not prepared. For a copy of the EA, contact the individual identified in the sectionFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order 3225, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. We have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Alaska Native tribes. Through the POC identified above, applicants will work with the Native Communities most likely to be affected and take actions to avoid interference with subsistence hunting.

The Service proposes to issue separate IHAs for small numbers of Pacific walrus and polar bears harassed incidentally by Shell, CPAI, and GXT seismic survey programs within the Chukchi Sea. These seismic programs are separate activities and independent of one another. Each applicant would be responsible for their own actions, operational conditions, and requirements for monitoring and reporting, as described above, under separate IHAs. The purpose of the seismic programs of Shell, CPAI, and GXT is oil and gas exploration. Theseseismic programs would be conducted in and around the 2007 MMS Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193. All activities would be conducted during the 2006 open-water season. Authorizations for the oil and gas seismic operations would be for approximately 6 months. These authorizations do not allow the intentional taking of polar bear or Pacific walrus.

If the level of activity, including the number of miles for seismic surveys and the number of support vessels and aircraft flights associated with seismic exploration, exceeds that described by the applicants, or the level or nature of take exceeds those projected here, the Service would reevaluate its findings. The Secretary may modify, suspend, or revoke an authorization if the findings are not accurate or the conditions described herein are not being met.

The Service requests interested persons to submit comments and information concerning this proposed IHA. Consistent with section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA, we are opening the comment period on this proposed authorization for 30 days (seeADDRESSES).

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state that prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

The following described public land has been examined and found suitable for classification for lease or conveyance under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869et seq.) and is hereby classified accordingly:

In accordance with the RPP Act, Clark County has filed an RPP application to develop the above described land as a Clark County Metropolitan Police Department Area Substation and related facilities. These related facilities include a Substation building facility (offices, kitchen, restrooms, utility/storage rooms, generator pad, and mechanical yard), ancillary equipment, separate paved parking areas for police and citizens, landscaped areas, lighting and utilities, and off-site improvements (boundary streets, utilities, street lighting, and sidewalks). Additional detailed information pertaining to this application, Plan of Development, and site plans is in case-file N-80066, which is located in the BLM Las Vegas Field Office.

Counties are a common applicant under the “public purposes” provision of the RPP Act. Clark County is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada and is therefore, a qualified applicant under the RPP Act. The land is not required for any Federal purpose. The lease/conveyance is consistent with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan, dated October 5, 1998, and would be in the public interest. The lease/patent, when issued, will be subject to the provisions of the RPP Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and will contain the following terms, conditions, and reservations to the United States:

1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act, of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).

2. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. The patent will be subject to:

1. All valid existing rights, and

2. A Right-of-Way N-63015 in favor of Clark County for roads, public utilities, and flood control purposes.

On May 8, 2006, the land described above will be segregated from all other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for lease/conveyance under the RPP Act, leasing under the mineral leasing laws and disposals under the mineral material disposal laws. Interested parties may submit comments regarding the proposed lease/conveyance or classification of the lands until June 22, 2006.

Classification Comments:Interested parties may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for a police substation. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.

Application Comments:Interested parties may submit comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the land for RPP use. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification of the land described in this notice will become effective on July 7, 2006. The lands will not be offered for lease/conveyance until after the classification becomes effective.

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents will be available for public review at the BLM Las Vegas Field Office during regular business hours Monday through Friday, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or address from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

Background.On April 10, 2006, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year reviews were such that full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (71 FR 23947, April 25, 2006). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

Participation in the reviews and public service list.Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in these reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the reviews need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the reviews need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report.The prehearing staff report in the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on August 22, 2006, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing.The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on September 7, 2006, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before August 30, 2006. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on September 5, 2006, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimonyin camerano later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions.Each party to the reviews may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is August 30, 2006. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is September 15, 2006; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the reviews may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the reviews on or before September 15, 2006. On October 11, 2006, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before October 13, 2006, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II (C) of the Commission's Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002).

Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Authority:These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

Pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (enacted in 1994), under Special 301 provisions, USTR must identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for IPR or deny fair and equitable market access for persons that rely on intellectual property protection. Countries that have the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies, or practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on the relevant U.S. products must be designated as “Priority Foreign Countries.”

Priority Foreign Countries are potentially subject to an investigation under the section 301 provisions of the Trade Act of 1974. USTR may not designate a country as a Priority Foreign Country if it is entering into good faith negotiations or making significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations to provide adequate and effective protection of IPR.

USTR must decide whether to identify countries within 30 days after issuance of the annual National Trade Estimate Report. In addition, USTR may identify a trading partner as a Priority Foreign Country or remove such identification whenever warranted.

USTR has created a “Priority Watch List” and “Watch List” under Special 301 provisions. Placement of a trading partner on the Priority Watch List or Watch List indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property. Countries placed on the Priority Watch List are the focus of increased bilateral attention concerning the problem areas.

Additionally, under section 306, USTR monitors a country's compliance with bilateral intellectual property agreements that are the basis for resolving an investigation under Section 301. USTR may apply sanctions if a country fails to satisfactorily implement an agreement.

The interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee that advises USTR on the implementation of Special 301 obtains information from and holds consultations with the private sector, U.S. embassies, the United States' trading partners, the U.S. Congress, and the National Trade Estimate Report, among other sources.

The Special 301 Report is available on USTR's Web site athttp://www.ustr.gov.

On April 28, 2006, USTR identified 48 trading partners that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property or deny fair and equitable market access to United States persons that rely upon intellectual property protection.

USTR announced that China and Russia remain significant concerns. China is a top IPR enforcement priority; USTR will maintain heightened scrutiny of China, will step up consideration of its WTO dispute settlement options, and will scrutinize IPR protection and enforcement at China's provincial level by conducting a special provincial review in the coming year. The China section of the report recognizes China's efforts to address IPR problems but concludes that IPR infringements throughout China remain at unacceptable levels.

The Russia section of the report notes that although Russia has taken some steps to curb pirate production of optical discs in factories, particularly those located on government-owned property, high levels of IPR infringement remain, particularly infringements connected with Russia-based optical disc plants and Web sites.

USTR again designated Paraguay for section 306 monitoring to ensure its compliance with the commitments made to the United States under bilateral intellectual property agreements.

USTR also announced the placement of 13 trading partners on the Priority Watch List: China, Russia, Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Ukraine, and Venezuela. In addition, USTR placed 34 trading partners on the Watch List: Bahamas, Belarus, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, European Union, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

USTR will conduct out-of-cycle reviews of Canada, Chile, Indonesia, Latvia, and Saudi Arabia.

The PBGC intends to request that OMB extend its approval, for a three-year period, of a generic collection of information consisting of customer satisfaction focus groups and surveys (OMB control number 1212-0053; expires October 31, 2006). The information collection will further the goals of Executive Order 12862, Setting Customer Service Standards, which states the Federal Government must seek to provide “the highest quality of service delivered to customers by private organizations providing a comparable or analogous service.”

The PBGC uses customer satisfaction focus groups and surveys to find out about the needs and expectations of its customers and assess how well it is meeting those needs and expectations. By keeping these avenues of communication open, the PBGC can continually improve service to its customers, including plan participants and beneficiaries, plan sponsors and their affiliates, plan administrators, pension practitioners, and others involved in the establishment, operation and termination of plans covered by the PBGC's insurance program. Because the areas of concern to the PBGC and its customers vary and may quickly change, it is important that the PBGC have the ability to evaluate customer concerns quickly by developing new vehicles for gathering information under this generic approval.

Participation in the focus groups and surveys will be voluntary. The PBGC will consult with the Office of Management and Budget regarding each specific information collection during the approval period. 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 PBGC estimates that the annual burden for this collection of information will total 1,400 hours for 4,200 respondents. The PBGC further estimates that the cost to respondents per burden hour will average $65, resulting in a total cost of $91,000 ($65 × 1,400).

The PBGC is specifically seeking public comments to:

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

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

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

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

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-551-5850).

1. Each Trust is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company and is organized as a Delaware business trust.1 Responsibility for the overall management of the Trusts rests with each Trust's respective board of trustees (each, a “Board”). Funds Management is registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Funds Management serves as investment adviser to the Funds. An existing Commission order permits certain Funds that are not money market Funds to invest uninvested cash balances in one or more money market Funds that comply with rule 2a-7 under the Act (“Money Market Funds”).2

2. Some Funds may lend money to banks or other entities by entering into repurchase agreements or other short-term instruments. Other Funds may borrow money from the same or similar banks or other entities for temporary purposes to satisfy redemption requests, to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls such as a trade “fail” in which cash payment for a security sold by a Fund has been delayed, or for other temporary purposes. Currently, the Funds have an overdraft provision with their custodian bank and committed lines of credit.

3. If the Funds were to borrow money from their custodian bank or through their lines of credit, the Funds would pay interest on the borrowed cash at a rate that would be higher than the rate that would be earned by other (non-borrowing) Funds on investments in repurchase agreements and other short-term instruments of the same maturity as the bank loan. Applicants state that this differential represents the profit the banks would earn for serving as a middleman between a borrower and a lender. In addition, while bank borrowings generally could supply needed cash to cover unanticipated redemptions and sales fails, the borrowing Funds would incur fees, interest and/or other charges involved in obtaining a bank loan.

4. Applicants request an order that would permit the Funds to enter into master interfund lending agreements (“Interfund Lending Agreements”) that would permit each Fund to lend money directly to and borrow directly from other Funds (“Interfund Loan”). Applicants believe that the Credit Facility would reduce the Funds' potential borrowing costs and enhance their ability to earn higher rates of interest on short-term lendings. Although the Credit Facility would reduce the Funds' need to borrow from banks, the Funds would be free to establish and/or continue committed lines of credit or other borrowing arrangements with banks.

5. Applicants anticipate that the Credit Facility would provide a borrowing Fund with cost savings when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. This situation could arise when redemptions exceed anticipated volumes and the Funds have insufficient cash on hand to satisfy such redemptions. When the Funds liquidate portfolio securities to meet redemption requests, which normally are paid immediately, they often do not receive payment in settlement for up to three days (or longer for certain foreign transactions). The Credit Facility would provide a source of immediate, short-term liquidity pending settlement of the sale of portfolio securities.

6. Applicants also propose using the Credit Facility when a sale of securities fails due to circumstances beyond a Fund's control, such as a delay in the delivery of cash to the Fund's custodian or improper delivery instructions by the broker effecting the transaction. Sales fails may present a cash shortfall if the Fund has undertaken to purchase a security with the proceeds from securities sold. When the Fund experiences a cash shortfall due to a sales fail, the custodian typically extends temporary credit to cover the shortfall and the Fund incurs overdraft charges. Alternatively, the Fund could fail on its intended purchase due to lack of funds from the previous sale, resulting in additional costs to the Fund, or sell a security on a same day settlement basis, earning a lower return on the investment. Use of the Credit Facility under these circumstances would enable the Fund to have access to immediate short-term liquidity without incurring custodian overdraft or other charges.

7. While bank borrowings could generally supply needed cash to cover unanticipated redemptions and sales fails, under the Credit Facility a borrowing Fund would pay lower interest rates than those offered by banks on short-term loans. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash balances in repurchase agreements or in short-term investments. Thus, applicants believe that the Credit Facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.

8. The interest rate charged to the Funds on any Interfund Loan (the “Interfund Loan Rate”) would be the average of the “Repo Rate” and the “Bank Loan Rate,” both as defined below. The Repo Rate on any day would be the highest rate available to the Funds from investments in overnight repurchase agreements. The Bank Loan Rate for any day would be calculated by the Interfund Lending Committee, as defined below, on each day an Interfund Loan is made according to a formula approved by the Boards intended to approximate the lowest interest rate at which bank short-term loans would be available to the Funds. The formula would be based upon a publicly available rate (e.g., Federal funds plus 25 basis points) and would vary with this rate so as to reflect changing bank loan rates. Each Board periodically would review the continuing appropriateness of using the publicly available rate used to determine the Bank Loan Rate, as well as the relationship between the Bank Loan Rate and current bank loan rates that would be available to the Funds. The initial formula and any subsequent modifications to the formula would be subject to the approval of each Board.

9. The Credit Facility would be administered by investment professionals and administrative personnel from Funds Management (the “Interfund Lending Committee”). No portfolio manager of any Fund will serve as a member of the Interfund Lending Committee. Under the Credit Facility, the portfolio managers for each participating Fund could providestanding instructions to participate daily as a borrower or lender. On each business day, the Interfund Lending Committee would collect data on the uninvested cash and borrowing requirements of all participating Funds from the Funds' custodian(s). The Money Market Funds would not participate as borrowers. Once it has determined the aggregate amount of cash available for loans and borrowing demand, the Interfund Lending Committee would allocate loans among borrowing Funds without any further communication from portfolio managers. Applicants expect far more available uninvested cash each day than borrowing demand. After allocating cash for Interfund Loans, the Interfund Lending Committee will invest any remaining cash in accordance with the standing instructions of portfolio managers or return remaining amounts for investment directly by the portfolio manager of the applicable Fund.

10. The Interfund Lending Committee would allocate borrowing demand and cash available for lending among the Funds on what the Interfund Lending Committee believes to be an equitable basis, subject to certain administrative procedures applicable to all Funds, such as the time of filing requests to participate, minimum loan sizes, and the need to minimize the number of transactions and associated administrative costs. To reduce transaction costs, each Interfund Loan normally would be allocated in a manner intended to minimize the number of participants necessary to complete the loan transaction.

11. The Interfund Lending Committee would (a) monitor the interest rates charged and the other terms and conditions of the loans, (b) limit the borrowings and loans entered into by each Fund to ensure that they comply with the Fund's investment policies and limitations, (c) ensure equitable treatment of each Fund, and (d) make quarterly reports to each Board concerning any transactions by the Funds under the Credit Facility and the interest rates charged. The method of allocation and related administrative procedures would be approved by each Board, including a majority of trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Fund, as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Independent Trustees”), to ensure that both borrowing and lending Funds participate on an equitable basis.

12. Funds Management, through the Interfund Lending Committee, would administer the Credit Facility as part of its duties under its advisory contract and administrative contract with each Fund and would receive no compensation for its services.

13. No Fund may participate in the Credit Facility unless (a) the Fund has obtained shareholder approval for its participation, if such approval is required by law, (b) the Fund has fully disclosed all material information concerning the Credit Facility in its prospectus and/or statement of additional information (“SAI”), and (c) the Fund's participation in the Credit Facility is consistent with its organizational documents and its investment policies and limitations.

14. In connection with the Credit Facility, applicants request an order under (a) section 6(c) of the Act granting relief from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting relief from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting relief from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements.

1. Section 17(a)(3) of the Act generally prohibits any affiliated person, or affiliated person of an affiliated person, from borrowing money or other property from a registered investment company. Section 21(b) generally prohibits any registered management company from lending money or other property to any person if that person controls or is under common control with the company. Section 2(a)(3)(C) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” of another person, in part, to be any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Applicants state that the Funds may be under common control by virtue of having Funds Management as their common investment adviser, and\or by reason of having common officers and/or trustees.

2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that an exemptive order may be granted where an exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) provided that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the transaction is consistent with the policy of the investment company as recited in its registration statement and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants believe that the proposed arrangements satisfy these standards for the reasons discussed below.

3. Applicants submit that sections 17(a)(3) and 21(b) of the Act were intended to prevent a person with strong potential adverse interests to and some influence over the investment decisions of a registered investment company from causing or inducing the investment company to engage in lending transactions that unfairly inure to the benefit of that person and that are detrimental to the best interests of the investment company and its shareholders. Applicants assert that the Credit Facility transactions do not raise these concerns because (a) Funds Management, through the Interfund Lending Committee, would administer the program as a disinterested fiduciary; (b) all Interfund Loans would consist only of uninvested cash reserves that a Fund otherwise would invest in short-term repurchase agreements or other short-term instruments; (c) the Interfund Loans would not involve a greater risk than such other investments; (d) the lending Fund would receive interest at a rate higher than it could obtain through such other investments; and (e) the borrowing Fund would pay interest at a rate lower than otherwise available to it under its bank loan agreements and avoid the up-front commitment fees associated with committed lines of credit. Moreover, applicants believe that the other conditions in the application would effectively preclude the possibility of any Fund obtaining an undue advantage over any other Fund.

4. Section 17(a)(1) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, from selling any securities or other property to the company. Section 12(d)(1) of the Act generally makes it unlawful for a registered investment company to purchase or otherwise acquire any security issued by any other investment company except in accordance with the limitations set forth in that section. Applicants state that the obligation of a borrowing Fund to repay an Interfund Loan may constitute a security under sections 17(a)(1) and 12(d)(1) of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt persons or transactions from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if and to the extent such exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Applicants contend that the standards under sections 6(c), 17(b), and 12(d)(1) of the Act are satisfied for all the reasons set forth above in support of their request for relief from sections 17(a)(3) and21(b) of the Act and for the reasons discussed below.

5. Applicants state that section 12(d)(1) of the Act was intended to prevent the pyramiding of investment companies in order to avoid duplicative costs and fees attendant upon multiple layers of investments. Applicants submit that the Credit Facility does not involve those abuses. Applicants note that there would be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds or to Fund shareholders, and that Funds Management would receive no additional compensation for its services in administering the Credit Facility. Applicants also note that the purpose of the Credit Facility is to provide economic benefits for all the participating Funds.

6. Section 18(f)(1) of the Act prohibits open-end investment companies from issuing any senior security except that a company is permitted to borrow from any bank, if immediately after the borrowing, there is an asset coverage of at least 300% for all borrowings of the company. Under section 18(g) of the Act, the term “senior security” includes any bond, debenture, note, or similar obligation or instrument constituting a security and evidencing indebtedness. Applicants request exemptive relief from section 18(f)(1) to the limited extent necessary to implement the Credit Facility (because the lending Funds are not banks).

7. Applicants believe that granting relief under section 6(c) of the Act is appropriate because the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) of the Act that all borrowings of a Fund, including combined interfund and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage. Based on the conditions and safeguards described in the application, applicants also submit that to allow the Funds to borrow from other Funds pursuant to the Credit Facility is consistent with the purposes and policies of section 18(f)(1) of the Act.

8. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act generally prohibit any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or affiliated person of an affiliated person, when acting as principal, from effecting any joint transaction in which the company participates unless the transaction is approved by the Commission. Rule 17d-1 provides that in passing upon applications filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of a registered investment company in a joint enterprise on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which the company's participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.

9. Applicants submit that the purpose of section 17(d) is to avoid overreaching by and unfair advantage to investment company insiders. Applicants believe that the Credit Facility is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act in that it offers both reduced borrowing costs and enhanced returns on loaned funds to all participating Funds and their shareholders. Applicants note that each Fund would have an equal opportunity to borrow and lend on equal terms consistent with its investment policies and fundamental investment limitations. Applicants therefore believe that each Fund's participation in the Credit Facility would be on terms no different from or less advantageous than that of other participating Funds.

Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:

1. The Interfund Loan Rate to be charged to the Funds under the Credit Facility will be the average of the Repo Rate and the Bank Loan Rate.

2. On each business day, the Interfund Lending Committee will compare the Bank Loan Rate with the Repo Rate and will make cash available for Interfund Loans only if the Interfund Loan Rate is (a) more favorable to the lending Fund than the Repo Rate and (b) more favorable to the borrowing Fund than the Bank Loan Rate.

3. If a Fund has outstanding borrowings, any Interfund Loans to the Fund (a) will be at an interest rate equal to or lower than any outstanding bank loan, (b) will be secured at least on an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding bank loan that requires collateral, (c) will have a maturity no longer than any outstanding bank loan (and in any event not over seven days), and (d) will provide that, if an event of default occurs under any agreement evidencing an outstanding bank loan to the Fund, that event of default will automatically (without need for action or notice by the lending Fund) constitute an immediate event of default under the Interfund Lending Agreement entitling the lending Fund to call the Interfund Loan (and exercise all rights with respect to any collateral) and that such call will be made if the lending bank exercises its right to call its loan under its agreement with the borrowing Fund.

4. A Fund may make an unsecured borrowing through the Credit Facility if its outstanding borrowings from all sources immediately after the interfund borrowing total 10% or less of its total assets, provided that if the Fund has a secured loan outstanding from any other lender, including but not limited to another Fund, the Fund's interfund borrowing will be secured on at least an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding loan that requires collateral. If a Fund's total outstanding borrowings immediately after an interfund borrowing would be greater than 10% of its total assets, the Fund may borrow through the Credit Facility on a secured basis only. A Fund may not borrow through the Credit Facility or from any other source if its total outstanding borrowings immediately after the interfund borrowing would be more than 331/3% of its total assets.

5. Before any Fund that has outstanding interfund borrowings may, through additional borrowings, cause its outstanding borrowings from all sources to exceed 10% of its total assets, the Fund must first secure each outstanding Interfund Loan by the pledge of segregated collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the loan. If the total outstanding borrowings of a Fund with outstanding Interfund Loans exceeds 10% of its total assets for any other reason (such as a decline in net asset value or because of shareholder redemptions), the Fund will within one business day thereafter (a) repay all its outstanding Interfund Loans, (b) reduce its outstanding indebtedness to 10% or less of its total assets, or (c) secure each outstanding Interfund Loan by the pledge of segregated collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the loan until the Fund's total outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total assets, at which time the collateral called for by this condition 5 shall no longer be required. Until each Interfund Loan that is outstanding at any time that a Fund's total outstanding borrowings exceeds 10% is repaid or the Fund's total outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total assets, the Fund will mark the value of the collateral to market each day and will pledge such additional collateral as is necessary to maintain the market value of the collateral that secures each outstanding Interfund Loan at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the loan.

6. No Fund may lend to another Fund through the Credit Facility if the loan would cause its aggregate outstanding loans through the Credit Facility toexceed 15% of its net assets at the time of the loan.

7. A Fund's Interfund Loans to any one Fund shall not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.

8. The duration of Interfund Loans will be limited to the time required to receive payment for securities sold, but in no event more than seven days. Loans effected within seven days of each other will be treated as separate loan transactions for purposes of this condition.

9. A Fund's borrowings through the Credit Facility, as measured on the day when the most recent loan was made, will not exceed the greater of 125% of the Fund's total net cash redemptions or 102% of sales fails for the preceding seven calendar days.

10. Each Interfund Loan may be called on one business day's notice by a lending Fund and may be repaid on any day by a borrowing Fund.

11. A Fund's participation in the Credit Facility must be consistent with its investment policies and limitations and organizational documents.

12. The Interfund Lending Committee will calculate total Fund borrowing and lending demand through the Credit Facility, and allocate loans on an equitable basis among the Funds without the intervention of any portfolio manager of the Funds. The Interfund Lending Committee will not solicit cash for the Credit Facility from any Fund or prospectively publish or disseminate loan demand data to portfolio managers. The Interfund Lending Committee will invest any amounts remaining after satisfaction of borrowing demand in accordance with the standing instructions from portfolio managers or return remaining amounts to Funds for investment directly by the Funds.

13. The Interfund Lending Committee will monitor the interest rates charged and the other terms and conditions of the Interfund Loans and will make a quarterly report to the Board of each Fund concerning the participation of the Fund in the Credit Facility and the terms and other conditions of any extensions of credit under the facility.

14. The Boards of the Funds, including a majority of the Independent Trustees: (a) will review no less frequently than quarterly each Fund's participation in the Credit Facility during the preceding quarter for compliance with the conditions of any order permitting such transactions; (b) will establish the Bank Loan Rate formula used to determine the interest rate on Interfund Loans, approve any modifications thereto, and review no less frequently than annually the continuing appropriateness of the Bank Loan Rate formula; and (c) will review no less frequently than annually the continuing appropriateness of the Fund's participation in the Credit Facility.

15. In the event an Interfund Loan is not paid according to its terms and the default is not cured within two business days from its maturity or from the time the lending Fund makes a demand for payment under the provisions of the Interfund Lending Agreement, the Interfund Lending Committee will promptly refer such loan for arbitration to an independent arbitrator selected by the Board of any Fund involved in the loan who will serve as the arbitrator of disputes concerning Interfund Loans.3 The arbitrator will resolve any problem promptly, and the arbitrator's decision will be binding on both Funds. The arbitrator will submit, at least annually, a written report to the Board of each Fund setting forth a description of the nature of any dispute and the actions taken by the Funds to resolve the dispute.

16. Each Fund will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any transaction under the Credit Facility occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, written records of all such transactions setting forth a description of the terms of the transaction, including the amount, the maturity, and the rate of interest on the loan, the rate of interest available at the time on short-term repurchase agreements and bank borrowings, and such other information presented to the Fund's Board in connection with the review required by conditions 13 and 14.

17. The Interfund Lending Committee will prepare and submit to the Boards for review an initial report describing the operations of the Credit Facility and the procedures to be implemented to ensure that all Funds are treated fairly. After the commencement of operation of the Credit Facility, the Interfund Lending Committee will report on the operations of the Credit Facility at the quarterly meetings of each Fund's Board. In addition, for two years following the commencement of the Credit Facility, the independent public accountant for each Fund shall prepare an annual report that evaluates the Interfund Lending Committee's assertion that it has established procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the conditions of the order. The report shall be prepared in accordance with the Statements on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 10 and it shall be filed pursuant to Item 77Q3 of Form N-SAR, as such Statements or Form may be revised, amended, or superseded from time to time. In particular, the report shall address procedures designed to achieve the following objectives: (a) That the Interfund Loan Rate will be higher than the Repo Rate, but lower than the Bank Loan Rate; (b) compliance with the collateral requirements as set forth in the application; (c) compliance with the percentage limitations on interfund borrowing and lending; (d) allocation of interfund borrowing and lending demand in an equitable manner and in accordance with procedures established by each Board; and (e) that the interest rate on any Interfund Loan does not exceed the interest rate on any outstanding third party borrowings of a borrowing Fund at the time of the Interfund Loan. After the final report is filed, the independent public accountant for the Fund in connection with Fund audit examinations, will continue to review the operation of the Credit Facility for compliance with the conditions of the application and their review will form the basis, in part, of the auditor's report on internal accounting controls in Form N-SAR.

18. No Fund will participate in the Credit Facility unless it has fully disclosed in its prospectus or SAI all material facts about its intended participation.

19. The Board of each Fund will satisfy the fund governance standards as defined in Rule 0-1(a)(7) under the Act.