42858 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Notices 

1September 8, 2009 is the first business day after 

twenty calendar days from the signature date of this 

notice. 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

4014, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., 

NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 

(202) 482–3338. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 2, 2009, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of the administrative review of 

the countervailing duty order on hot– 

rolled carbon steel products from India 

covering the period January 1, 2008, 

through December 31, 2008. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 74 FR 5821 (February 2, 2009). The 

preliminary results are currently due no 

later than September 2, 2009. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to make a 

preliminary determination within 245 

days after the last day of the anniversary 

month of an order for which a review 

is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act further states that if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period specified, the 

administering authority may extend the 

245-day period to issue its preliminary 

results to up to 365 days. 

Due to the complexity of the issues in 

this administrative review, such as the 

number of programs under review 

during the POR, we have determined 

that it is not practicable to complete the 

preliminary results within the 245-day 

period. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are 

extending the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results of the review by 

120 days. The preliminary results are 

now due no later than December 31, 

2009. The final results continue to be 

due 120 days after publication of the 

preliminary results. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act. 

Dated: August 19, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–20501 Filed 8–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–955] 

Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: August 25, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Justin Neuman, Toni Page, or Nicholas 

Czajkowski; AD/CVD Operations, Office 

6, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0486, 

(202) 482–1398, or (202) 482–1395 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On July 29, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received 

countervailing duty (CVD) and 

antidumping (AD) petitions concerning 

imports of certain magnesia carbon 

bricks (magnesia carbon bricks) from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC) filed 

in proper form by Resco Products, Inc. 

(Petitioner), domestic producers of 

magnesia carbon bricks. See ‘‘Petition 

for the Imposition of Countervailing 

Duties: Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks 

from the People’s Republic of China’’ 

(CVD PRC Petition). On August 3, 2009, 

the Department spoke via telephone 

with petitioner to request additional 

information and clarification of certain 

areas of the CVD petition involving 

countervailable subsidy allegations. See 

Memorandum from Mark Hoadley, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, to the File, ‘‘CVD Petition for 

Investigation of Magnesia Carbon Bricks 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC): Phone Call with Counsel for 

Petitioner’’ dated August 4, 2009. Based 

on the Department’s requests, the 

Petitioner timely filed additional 

information on August 7, 2009. On 

August 4 and 12, 2009, the Department 

issued additional requests for 

information and clarification of certain 

areas of the CVD PRC Petition. Based on 

the Department’s requests, Petitioner 

timely filed additional information 

pertaining to the CVD PRC Petition on 

August 10 and 14, 2009, (hereinafter, 

Supplement to the CVD PRC Petition 

dated August 10, 2009 and Second 

Supplement to the CVD PRC Petition, 

dated August 14, 2009). 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), Petitioner alleges that 

producers/exporters of magnesia carbon 

bricks in the PRC received 

countervailable subsidies within the 

meaning of section 701 and 771(5) of the 

Act, and that imports from these 

exporters/producers materially injure, 

or threaten material injury to, an 

industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed this CVD PRC Petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, and Petitioner has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the 

countervailing duty investigation that it 

is requesting the Department to initiate 

(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support 

for the CVD Petition’’ below). 

Period of Investigation 

The anticipated period of 

investigation (POI) is calendar year 

2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are magnesia carbon bricks 

from the PRC. For a full description of 

the scope of the investigation, please see 

the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ in 

Appendix I to this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the CVD PRC 

Petition, we discussed the scope with 

Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate 

reflection of the products for which the 

domestic industry is seeking relief. 

Moreover, as discussed in the preamble 

to the regulations (See Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997)), we are setting aside a period for 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. The 

Department encourages all interested 

parties to submit such comments by 

September 8, 2009.1 Comments should 

be addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Notices 42859 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, the Department held 

consultations with the government of 

the PRC (hereinafter, the GOC) with 

respect to the CVD PRC Petition on 

August 7, 2009. See Memorandum to 

the File, Countervailing Duty Petitions 

on Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Consultations with the Government of 

the People’s Republic of China, on file 

in the Central Records Unit (CRU), 

Room 1117 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the CVD Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The United 

States International Trade Commission 

(ITC), which is responsible for 

determining whether ‘‘the domestic 

industry’’ has been injured, must also 

determine what constitutes a domestic 

like product in order to define the 

industry. While both the Department 

and the ITC must apply the same 

statutory definition regarding the 

domestic like product (see section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel 

Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 

639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d 865 

F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 

492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioner does not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that 

magnesia carbon bricks constitute a 

single domestic like product and we 

have analyzed industry support in terms 

of that domestic like product. For a 

discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Countervailing 

Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the PRC 

(CVD Initiation Checklist) at Attachment 

II, Analysis of Industry Support for the 

Petitions Covering Certain Magnesia 

Carbon Bricks from the People’s 

Republic of China and Mexico, dated 

concurrently with this notice and on file 

in the CRU, Room 1117 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, we considered the industry 

support data contained in the CVD PRC 

Petition with reference to the domestic 

like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigations,’’ Appendix I of this 

notice. To establish industry support, 

Petitioner provided its own 2008 

production of the domestic like product, 

as well as the production of the two 

supporters of the CVD PRC Petition, and 

compared this to the estimated total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See the 

CVD PRC Petition, at Exhibits 2–4, 

Supplement to the CVD PRC Petition, 

dated August 10, 2009, at 8–12, and 

Exhibits R2–R–6, and Second 

Supplement to the CVD PRC Petition, 

dated August 14, 2009, at 1–2. Petitioner 

estimated total 2008 production of the 

domestic like product based on its own 

production data, data from the two 

supporters of the CVD PRC Petition, and 

knowledge of the U.S. industry. See the 

CVD PRC Petition, at Exhibits 2–4, 

Supplement to the CVD PRC Petition, 

dated August 10, 2009, at 8–12, and 

Exhibits R2–R–6, and Second 

Supplement to the CVD PRC Petition, 

dated August 14, 2009, at 1–2; see also 

CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment 

II. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

CVD PRC Petition, the supplemental 

submissions, and other information 

readily available to the Department 

indicates that Petitioner has established 

industry support. First, the CVD PRC 

Petition established support from 

domestic producers (or workers) 

accounting for more than 50 percent of 

the total production of the domestic like 

product and, as such, the Department is 

not required to take further action in 

order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling). See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the 

Act, see also CVD Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the CVD PRC 

Petition account for at least 25 percent 

of the total production of the domestic 

like product. See CVD Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the CVD PRC 

Petition account for more than 50 

percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the CVD 

PRC Petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the CVD 

PRC Petition was filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See id. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the CVD PRC Petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and it has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the 

countervailing investigation that it is 

requesting the Department to initiate. 

See id. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
42860 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Notices 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleges that imports of 

magnesia carbon bricks from the PRC 

are benefitting from countervailable 

subsidies and that such imports are 

causing, or threaten to cause, material 

injury to the domestic industry 

producing magnesia carbon bricks. In 

addition, Petitioner alleges that 

subsidized imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioner contends that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, underselling and 

price depressing and suppressing 

effects, increased import penetration, 

lost sales and revenue, reduced 

production, reduced capacity 

utilization, reduced shipments, reduced 

employment, and overall poor financial 

performance. We have assessed the 

allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 

have determined that these allegations 

are properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation. See CVD 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, 

Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of 

Material Injury and Causation for the 

Petitions Covering Certain Magnesia 

Carbon Bricks from the People’s 

Republic of China and Mexico. 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

the Department to initiate a CVD 

proceeding whenever an interested 

party files a CVD petition on behalf of 

an industry that: (1) alleges the elements 

necessary for an imposition of a duty 

under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) 

is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to the petitioners 

supporting the allegations. 

The Department has examined the 

CVD PRC Petition on magnesia carbon 

bricks from the PRC and finds that it 

complies with the requirements of 

section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, 

in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of 

the Act, we are initiating a CVD 

investigation to determine whether 

producers/exporters of magnesia carbon 

bricks in the PRC receive 

countervailable subsidies. For a 

discussion of evidence supporting our 

initiation determination, see CVD 

Initiation Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

CVD PRC Petition to provide 

countervailable subsidies to producers/ 

exporters of the subject merchandise: 

A. Provision of Inputs for Less than 

Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) 

1. Provision of Land–Use Rights to 

State–Owned Enterprises (SOEs) for 

LTAR 

2. Provision of Electricity at LTAR 

B. Export Restraints of Raw Materials 

C. Tax Benefit Programs 

1. Two Free/Three Half Program for 

Foreign–Invested Enterprises (FIEs) 

2. Income Tax Reductions for Export– 

Oriented FIEs 

3. Preferential Income Tax Policy for 

Enterprises in the Northeast Region 

4. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for 

Enterprises in the Old Industrial 

Bases of Northeast China 

5. Location–Based Income Tax 

Reduction Programs for FIEs 

6. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reduction Programs for 

‘‘Productive’’ FIEs 

7. Domestic Preference Tax Benefits 

a. Income Tax Credits for 

Domestically Owned Companies 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment 

b. Income Tax Credits for FIEs 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment 

c. VAT Rebates on Purchases of 

Domestically Produced Equipment 

8. Preferential Tax Programs for 

Enterprises Recognized as High or 

New Technology Enterprises 

D. Northeast Revitalization Program and 

Related Provincial Policies 

a. E. Direct Grants 

1. The State Key Technology 

Renovation Project Fund 

2. Famous Brands Programs 

F. Grants to Companies for ‘‘Outward 

Expansion’’ and Export Performance in 

Guangdong Province 

G. Preferential Loans and Directed 

Credit to the Magnesia Carbon Brick 

Industry 

H. Cash Grant Programs 

1. Fund for Supporting Technological 

Innovation for Technological Smalland Medium–Sized Enterprises 

(SMEs) 

2. Development Fund for SMEs 

3. Fund for International Market 

Exploration by SMEs 

I. Zhejiang Province Program to Rebate 

Antidumping Costs 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is investigating 

these programs, see CVD Initiation 

Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers/exporters of 

the subject merchandise in the PRC: 

A. Provision of Water for Less Than 

Adequate Remuneration 

B. Provision of Natural Gas for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration 

C. VAT and Tariff Exemptions for 

Purposes of Fixed Assets Under the 

Foreign Trade Development Fund 

Program 

D. Shenzhen City Program to Rebate 

Antidumping Costs 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is not initiating an 

investigation of these programs, see 

CVD Initiation Checklist. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

intends to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) data for U.S. imports during the 

POI (i.e., calendar year 2008). We intend 

to release the CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

to all parties with access to information 

protected by APO within five days of 

the announcement of the initiation of 

this investigation. Interested parties may 

submit comments regarding the CBP 

data and respondent selection within 

seven calendar days of publication of 

this notice. We intend to make our 

decision regarding respondent selection 

within 20 days of publication of this 

notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s 

website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Distribution of Copies of the CVD 

Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the CVD PRC Petition has been 

provided to the representatives of the 

GOC. Because of the particularly large 

number of producers/exporters 

identified in the CVD PRC Petition, the 

Department considers the service of the 

public version of the petition to the 

foreign producers/exporters satisfied by 

the delivery of the public version to the 

GOC, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 45 days after the date on which 

the petition was filed, whether there is 

a reasonable indication that imports of 

subsidized magnesia carbon bricks from 

the PRC materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. See 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Notices 42861 

section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative 

ITC determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated; see 

section 703(a)(1) of the Act. Otherwise, 

the investigation will proceed according 

to statutory and regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: August 18, 2009. 

Carole Showers, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy 

and Negotiations. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

Imports covered by this petition 

consist of certain chemically bonded 

(resin or pitch), magnesia carbon bricks 

with a magnesia component of at least 

70 percent magnesia (‘‘MgO’’) by 

weight, regardless of the source of raw 

materials for the MgO, with carbon 

levels ranging from trace amounts to 30 

percent by weight, regardless of 

enhancements, (for example, magnesia 

carbon bricks can be enhanced with 

coating, grinding, tar impregnation or 

coking, high temperature heat 

treatments, anti–slip treatments or metal 

casing) and regardless of whether or not 

anti–oxidants are present (for example, 

antioxidants can be added to the mix 

from trace amounts to 15 percent by 

weight as various metals, metal alloys, 

and metal carbides). Certain magnesia 

carbon bricks that are the subject of this 

investigation are currently classifiable 

under subheadings 6902.10.10.00, 

6902.10.50.00, 6815.91.00.00, and 

6815.99 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

While HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–20493 Filed 8–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XR07 

Endangered Species; File No. 14396 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental ControlDivision of Fish and Wildlife, Dover, 

Delaware, has applied in due form for 

a permit to take shortnose sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum) for purposes 

of scientific research. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

September 24, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species (APPS) home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov/index.cfm, and 

then selecting File No. 14396 from the 

list of available applications. These 

documents are also available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301)713–2289; fax (301)713–0376; and 

Northeast Region, NMFS, Protected 

Resources Division, 55 Great Republic 

Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone 

(978)281–9300; fax (978)281–9333. 

Written comments or requests for a 

public hearing on this application 

should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those 

individuals requesting a hearing should 

set forth the specific reasons why a 

hearing on this particular request would 

be appropriate. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile at (301)713–0376, provided 

the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy 

submitted by mail and postmarked no 

later than the closing date of the 

comment period. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

e-mail. The mailbox address for 

providing e-mail comments is 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Include 

in the subject line of the e-mail 

comment the following document 

identifier: File No. 14396. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Malcolm Mohead or Kate Swails, 

(301)713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit is requested under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), and the regulations 

governing the taking, importing, and 

exporting of endangered and threatened 

species (50 CFR 222–226). 

The applicant is seeking a five-year 

scientific research permit to conduct a 

study of shortnose sturgeon in the 

Delaware River. The primary study 

objective would be to locate and 

document nursery areas, individual 

movement patterns, seasonal 

movements, home ranges, and habitats 

of juvenile shortnose sturgeon through 

the use of telemetry. This focus would 

be in association with an ongoing 

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrhinchus) study with similar 

objectives. Up to 200 shortnose sturgeon 

would be weighed, measured, examined 

for tags, marked with Passive Integrated 

Transponder (PIT) tags and Floy tags, 

and released. Up to 15 early stage 

juvenile shortnose sturgeon would also 

be anesthetized and implanted with 

acoustic transmitters if they are of 

suitable size. A total of one 

unintentional mortality is requested 

over the five year term of the project 

which is scheduled to take place from 

March 1 to December 15. 

Dated: August 19, 2009. 

P. Michael Payne, 

Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–20491 Filed 8–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XQ20 

Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals 

During Specified Activities; Marine 

Geophysical Survey in the Northeast 

Pacific Ocean, August–October, 2009 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental 

take authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) regulations, notification is 

hereby given that NMFS has issued an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) to Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory (L-DEO), a part of Columbia 

University, to take small numbers of 

marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment only, incidental to 

conducting a marine seismic survey in 

the northeast Pacific Ocean. 

DATES: Effective August 19, 2009 

through October 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the 

application are available by writing to P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225 or by telephoning the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES