Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Notices 32321

navigational products and for GIS

related applications. The workshops

will be announced in the NOS Web

sites, www.nos.noaa.gov, and the Office

of Coast Survey, noted above, and by

mail to NOS constituents.

NOS plans to conduct an initial

briefing that will be open to the general

public concerning its plan to release

ENC’s on the Internet. The briefing will

be held at 9 AM, July 11, 2001, Room

4527, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, Maryland. Members of the

public who plan on attending this

briefing should contact Mike Brown at

(301)–713–2712 x153 or e-mail

Mike.Brown@noaa.gov.

NOS has been in contact with the U.S.

Coast Guard concerning 33 CFR 164.33,

Nautical Charts and Publications, as it

pertains to this announced policy.

Questions concerning those regulations

should be addressed to the Director of

Waterways Management, United States

Coast Guard, Washington, DC 20593–

0001.

NOS is publishing this notice

consistent with section 8a(6)(j) of the

Office of Management and Budget

Circular A–130. Anyone with comments

or questions regarding this subject

should address them to Captain

Nicholas Perugini, NOAA, Chief,

Marine Chart Division, Office of Coast

Survey, NOS/NOAA, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland

20910–3282.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Captain Nicholas E. Perugini, NOAA,

Chief, Marine Chart Division, Office of

Coast Survey, NOS/NOAA 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland

20910–3282, 301–713–2724, Extension

101, FAX: 301–713–4516.

Dated: June 7, 2001.

Margaret A. Davidson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean

Services and Coastal Zone Management.

[FR Doc. 01–14974 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 052401B]

Small Takes of Marine Mammals

Incidental to Specified Activities;

Offshore Seismic Activities in the

Beaufort Sea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: ACTION: Notice of receipt of

application and proposed authorization

for a small take exemption; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request

from WesternGeco, LLC (formerly

Western Geophysical) for an

authorization to take small numbers of

marine mammals by harassment

incidental to conducting ocean bottom

cable (OBC) seismic surveys in the

Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Under the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS

is requesting comments on its proposal

to authorize WesternGeco to

incidentally take, by harassment, small

numbers of bowhead whales and other

marine mammals in the above

mentioned area during the open water

period of 2001.

DATES: Comments and information must

be received no later than July 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the

application should be addressed to

Donna Wieting, Chief, Marine Mammal

Conservation Division, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910–3225. A copy of the application,

the Technical Monitoring Plan, the

Environmental Assessment (EA), and a

list of references used in this document

may be obtained by writing to this

address or by telephoning one of the

contacts listed here.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Simona Perry Roberts, Office of

Protected Resources (301) 713–2322,

ext. 106, or Brad Smith, Alaska Region

(907) 271–5006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Sections 101 (a)(5)(A) and (D) of the

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct

the Secretary of Commerce to allow,

upon request, the incidental, but not

intentional taking of small numbers of

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who

engage in a specified activity (other than

commercial fishing) within a specified

geographical region if certain findings

are made and either regulations are

issued or, if the taking is limited to

harassment, 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.

On April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15884),

NMFS published an interim rule

establishing, among other things,

procedures for issuing incidental

harassment authorizations (IHAs) under

section 101 (a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for

activities in Arctic waters. For

additional information on the

procedures to be followed for this

authorization, please refer to that

document.

Summary of Request

On April 16, 2001, NMFS received an

application from WesternGeco

requesting an authorization for the

harassment of small numbers of several

species of marine mammals incidental

to conducting OBC seismic surveys

during the open water season in the

south central Beaufort Sea off Alaska

between western Camden Bay and

Harrison Bay. The primary area of

seismic activity is expected to be an area

approximately 16 by 7 kilometers (km)

(10 miles (mi) by 4 mi) in and near

Simpson Lagoon, west of Prudhoe Bay

and offshore of Oliktok Point. Weather

permitting, the survey is expected to

take place between approximately July

15 and late October, 2001. WesternGeco

anticipates completing six survey

patches during the 2001 open water

season. A detailed description of the

work proposed for 2001 is contained in

the application (WesternGeco, 2001)

which is available upon request (see

ADDRESSES).

Description of the Activity

Seismic surveys are used to obtain

data about geological formations several

thousands of feet deep. The proposed

seismic operation is an OBC survey.

WesternGeco’s OBC survey involves

dropping cables from a ship to the ocean

bottom, forming a patch consisting of 4

parallel cables 8.9 km (5.5 mi) long,

separated by approximately 600 meters

(m) (1,968 feet (ft)) from each other.

Hydrophones and geophones, attached

to the cables, are used to detect seismic

energy reflected back from rock strata

below the ocean bottom. The source of

this energy is a submerged acoustic

source, called a seismic airgun array,

that releases compressed air into the

water, creating an acoustical energy

pulse that is directed downward toward

the seabed. WesternGeco will use two

source vessels for the open-water 2001

seismic surveys, one for deep water and

one for shallow water, primarily

shoreward of the barrier islands. The

deep water vessel, the R/V Arctic Star,

will utilize an airgun array with an air

discharge volume of 1,210 cubic inches

32322 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Notices

(in3) (19.8 liters, L). The maximum

source levels for the Arctic Star will be

at 249 dB re 1 micro Pascal per minute

(Pa-m) (when the acoustic pressure is

29.4 bar-meters (zero to peak)), or 253

dB re 1 micro Pa-m (when the acoustic

pressure is 45.9 bar-meters (peak-topeak)). Most operations utilizing the

1,210 in3 array are expected to operate

at a gun depth of 2.3 m (7.5 ft) and water

depth of <10 m (<32.8 ft). The shallow

water source vessel, the R/V Peregrine,

will utilize an airgun array with an air

discharge volume of 640 in3 (10.48 L).

The source level maximums for the

Peregrine will be at 237 dB re 1 micro

Pa-m (when the acoustic pressure is 6.7

bar-meters (zero to peak)), or 242 dB re

1 micro Pa-m (when the acoustic

pressure is 12.2 bar-meters (peak to

peak)). These airgun arrays are smaller

and less powerful than the arrays used

in some other seismic programs in the

Beaufort Sea prior to 1999 and are

expected to operate at a gun depth of 1

m (3.3 ft) in very shallow water.

The seismic vessels will sail along

pre-plotted source lines arranged

orthogonally to the OBCs. Each source

line will be 5 km (3.1 mi) long and

adjacent source lines will be

approximately 500 m (1,640 ft) apart.

There will be 34 source lines for each

seismic patch. The overall grid of source

lines for a given patch will be 4.7 km

by 16.5 km (2.9 mi by 10.2 mi) and the

source line for one patch will overlap

with those from adjacent patches.

After sufficient data have been

recorded to allow accurate mapping of

the rock strata, the cables are lifted onto

the deck of one of the two self-powered

cable vessels (R/V Western Endeavor

and R/V Western Frontier), moved to a

new location (ranging from several

hundred to a few thousand feet away),

and placed onto the seabed again. A

small utility vessel (Ski Barge) may also

be used to transfer seismic crew and/or

marine mammal observers, as well as

supplies and refuse, between the

seismic vessels and Prudhoe Bay. Air

support will be limited to infrequent (if

any) helicopter flights and, starting in

early September, aerial surveys at

altitudes from 900 to 1500 ft (274 to 457

m). For a more detailed description of

the seismic operation, please refer to

WesternGeco (2001).

Description of Habitat and Marine

Mammals Affected by the Activity

A detailed description of the Beaufort

Sea ecosystem and its associated marine

mammals can be found in several

documents (Corps of Engineers, 1999;

NMFS, 1999; Minerals Management

Service (MMS), 1992, 1996) and is not

repeated here.

Marine Mammals

The Beaufort/Chukchi Seas support a

diverse assemblage of marine mammals,

including bowhead whales (Balaena

mysticetus), gray whales (Eschrichtius

robustus), beluga

whales(Delphinapterus leucas), ringed

seals (Phoca hispida), spotted seals

(Phoca largha) and bearded seals

(Erignathus barbatus). Descriptions of

the biology and distribution of these

species and of others can be found in

NMFS (1999), Western Geophysical

(2000), WesternGeco (2001), the annual

monitoring reports for seismic surveys

in the Beaufort Sea (LGL Ltd. and

Greeneridge Sciences Inc, 1997, 1998,

1999, 2000) and several other

documents (Corps of Engineers, 1999;

Lentfer, 1988; MMS, 1992, 1996; Ferrero

et al., 2000). Please refer to those

documents for information on these

species.

Potential Effects of Seismic Surveys on

Marine Mammals

Disturbance by seismic noise is the

principal means of taking by this

activity. Support vessels and aircraft

may provide a potential secondary

source of noise. The physical presence

of vessels and aircraft could also lead to

non-acoustic effects on marine

mammals involving visual or other cues.

Underwater pulsed sounds generated

by open water seismic operations may

be detectable a substantial distance

away from the activity. The effect of

these pulsed sounds on living marine

resources, particularly marine mammals

in the area, will be dependent on the

hearing sensitivity of the species, the

behavior of the animal at the time the

sound is detected, as well as the

distance and level of the sound relative

to ambient conditions. Any sound that

is detectable is (at least in theory)

capable of eliciting a disturbance or

avoidance reaction by some marine

mammals or of masking signals of

comparable frequency that are generated

by marine mammals (e.g., whale calls)

(WesternGeco, 2001). An incidental

harassment take is presumed to occur

when marine mammals in the vicinity

of the seismic source, the seismic vessel,

other vessels, or aircraft show a

disturbance or avoidance reaction to the

generated sounds or to visual cues.

When the received levels of noise

exceed some behavioral reaction

threshold, cetaceans will show

disturbance reactions. The levels,

frequencies, and types of noise that will

elicit a response vary between and

within species, individuals, locations,

and seasons. Behavioral changes may be

subtle alterations in the surface,

respiration, and dive cycles. More

conspicuous responses include changes

in activity or aerial displays, movement

away from the sound source, or

complete avoidance of the area. The

reaction threshold and degree of

response are related to the activity of the

animal at the time of the disturbance.

Whales engaged in active behaviors,

such as feeding, socializing, or mating,

are less likely than resting animals to

show overt behavioral reactions, unless

the disturbance is directly threatening.

Seismic pulses have been observed to

cause strong avoidance reactions by

many of the bowhead whales occurring

within a distance of several kilometers,

including changes in surfacing,

respiration and dive cycles, and to

sometimes cause avoidance or other

changes in bowhead behavior at

considerably greater distances

(Richardson et al., 1995; Rexford, 1996;

MMS, 1997; Miller et al., 1999). Airgun

pulses may also disturb some other

marine mammal species occurring in

the area. Ringed seals within a few

hundred meters of an airgun array

showed variable behavior to the noise,

with some moving somewhat farther

away and other seals not moving far at

all (Harris et al., 1997, 1998, in press;

Lawson and Moulton, 1999; Moulton

and Lawson, 2000).

Although some masking of lowfrequency sounds (e.g., bowhead and

gray whale calls) is a possibility for this

activity, the intermittent nature of

seismic survey pulses used by

WesternGeco (1 second in duration

every 16 to 24 seconds), as well as the

fact that airgun operations are expected

to occur no more than 50 percent of the

time, will limit the extent of any

masking. Bowhead whales are known to

continue calling in the presence of

seismic survey sounds, and their calls

can be heard between seismic pulses

(Greene et al., 1997, 1999; Richardson et

al., 1986). Masking effects are expected

to be absent in the case of beluga

whales, given that sounds utilized by

them are at much higher frequencies (in

the 2 to 6 kilohertz (kHz) range) (Sjare

and Smith, 1986) than are airgun sounds

from WesternGeco’s seismic surveys

(highest frequency of 188 hertz(Hz))

(WesternGeco, 2001).

Permanent hearing damage is not

expected to occur during the project.

There is no direct evidence that the

hearing systems of marine mammals

close to an airgun array would be at risk

of temporary or permanent hearing

impairment; however, depending on the

species, the equipment being used, and

the number of pulses to which the

animal is exposed, temporary threshold

shift (TTS) is a theoretical possibility for

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Notices 32323

animals within a few hundred meters of

the source (Richardson et al., 1995;

Finneran et al.,2000). Planned

monitoring and mitigation measures,

proposed by WesternGeco and

described later in this document, are

designed to avoid sudden onsets of

seismic pulses at full power, to detect

marine mammals occurring near the

array, and to avoid exposing them to

sound pulses that have any possibility

of causing hearing impairment.

Bowhead Whales

Studies conducted prior to 1996

(Reeves et al., 1984, Fraker et al., 1985,

Richardson et al., 1986, Ljungblad et al.,

1988) have reported that, when an

operating seismic vessel approaches

within a few kilometers, most bowhead

whales exhibit strong avoidance

behavior and changes in surfacing,

respiration, and dive cycles. In three

studies of bowhead whales and one of

gray whales during this period,

surfacing-dive cycles were unusually

rapid in the presence of seismic noise,

with fewer breaths per surfacing and

longer intervals between breaths

(Richardson et al., 1986; Koski and

Johnson, 1987; Ljungblad et al., 1988;

Malme et al., 1988). This pattern of

subtle effects was evident among

bowhead whales 6 km to at least 73 km

(3.7 to 45.3 mi) from seismic vessels.

One visibly apparent avoidance

response reported from pre-1996 studies

involved observations of bowhead

whales swimming away from a seismic

vessel 24 km (15 mi) away (Koski and

Johnson, 1987). It is likely that some

migrating bowhead whales show

avoidance at distances exceeding those

at which Ljungblad et al.(1988) and

Richardson et al. (1986) observed

responses. However, at distances greater

than around 24 km (15 mi), only subtle

changes in the surfacing, respiration,

dive cycles were detectable (Richardson

et al., 1986).

Results from the 1996–1998 BP, Inc.

and Western Geophysical seismic

monitoring program indicate that most

migrating bowhead whales deflected

seaward to avoid an area within about

20 km (12.4 mi) of an active nearshore

seismic operation when there were no

barrier islands or very shallow water

between the seismic operation and the

whales (Miller et al., 1998, 1999). The

available data do not provide an

unequivocal estimate of the distance at

which approaching bowhead whales

began to deflect, but this may be on the

order of 35 km (21.7 mi). It is also

uncertain how far beyond (west of) the

seismic operation the seaward

deflection persisted (Miller et al., 1999).

Although very few bowhead whales

approached within 20 km (12.4 mi) of

the operating seismic vessel, the number

of bowhead whales sighted within that

area returned to normal within 12–24

hours after the airgun operations ended

(Miller et al., 1999).

Inupiat whalers believe that migrating

bowhead whales are sometimes

displaced at distances considerably

greater than suggested by the pre–1996

scientific studies (Rexford, 1996). Also,

whalers believe that avoidance effects

can extend out to distances on the order

of 30 miles, and that bowhead whales

exposed to seismic pulses are also

skittish and difficult to approach. The

‘‘skittish’’ behavior may be related to the

observed subtle changes in the behavior

of bowhead whales exposed to seismic

pulses from distant seismic vessels

(Richardson et al., 1986).

Gray Whales

The reactions of gray whales to

seismic pulses are similar to those

documented for bowhead whales during

the 1980s. Migrating gray whales along

the California coast were noted to slow

their speed of swimming, turn away

from seismic noise sources, and increase

their respiration rates. Malme et

al.(1983, 1984, 1988) concluded that

approximately 50 percent of the

migrating gray whales showed

avoidance when the average received

pulse level was 170 dB (re 1 micro-Pa).

By some behavioral measures, clear

effects were evident at average pulse

levels of 160+ dB, and less consistent

results were suspected at levels of 140–

160 dB, farther away. Recent research

on migrating gray whales showed

responses similar to those observed in

the earlier research when the source was

moored in the migration corridor 2 km

(1.2 mi) from shore. However, when the

source was placed offshore (4 km (2.5

mi)) of the migration corridor, the

avoidance response was not evident on

track plots (Tyack and Clark, 1998).

Beluga Whale

The beluga whale is the only species

of toothed whale (Odontoceti) expected

to be encountered in the Beaufort Sea.

Beluga whales have poor hearing

thresholds at frequencies below 200 Hz,

where most of the energy from airgun

arrays is concentrated. Their thresholds

at these frequencies (as measured in a

captive situation), are 125 dB re 1

micro-Pa or more depending upon

frequency (Johnson et al., 1989).

Although not expected to be

significantly affected by the noise, given

the high source levels of seismic pulses,

airgun sounds may sometimes be

audible to beluga whales at distances of

100 km (62.1 mi)(Richardson and

Wursig, 1997), and perhaps further if

actual low-frequency hearing thresholds

in the open sea are better than those

measured in captivity (WesternGeco,

2001). The reaction distance for beluga

whales, although presently unknown, is

expected to be less than that for

bowhead whales, given the presumed

poorer sensitivity of beluga whales to

low-frequency sounds (WesternGeco,

2001).

Ringed, Spotted, and Bearded Seals

No detailed studies of reactions by

seals to noise from open water seismic

exploration have been published

(Richardson et al., 1995). However,

there are some data on the reactions of

seals to various types of impulsive

sounds (LGL and Greeneridge, 1997,

1998, 1999a; J. Parsons as quoted in

Greene, et al. 1985; Anon., 1975; Mate

and Harvey, 1985). Also, the results

from the 1996–2000 BP and Western

Geophysical monitoring studies provide

a substantial amount of directly relevant

information (Harris et al., 1997, 1998, in

press; Lawson and Moulton, 1999;

Moulton and Lawson, 2000). During

these monitoring studies, the operation

of the airgun array had minor and

variable effects on the behavior of seals

within a few hundred meters of the

array and (to a limited extent) the

distribution of seals around the source

vessel (Moulton and Lawson, 2000).

Nonetheless, seals were observed

throughout each season in the general

area where seismic operations were

occurring. Seals were sometimes

observed within the 190 dB re 1 microPa designated safety radii, and at these

times the airguns were shut down.

Underwater audiograms have been

obtained for three species of phocinid

seals - the ringed, harbor, and harp seals

(Pagophilus groenlandicus). These

audiograms were reviewed in

Richardson et al. (1995) and Kastak and

Schusterman (1998). Below 30–50 kHz,

the hearing threshold of phocinids is

essentially flat, down to at least 1 kHz,

and ranges between 60 and 85 dB re 1

micro-Pa. There are few published data

on hearing sensitivity of phocid seals

below 1 kHz. NMFS considers harbor

seals to have a hearing threshold of 70-

85 dB at 1 kHz (60 FR 53753, October

17, 1995), and recent measurements for

a harbor seal indicate that, below 1 kHz,

its thresholds deteriorate gradually to 97

dB re 1 micro-Pa at 100 Hz (Kastak and

Schusterman, 1998).

Based on published references (see

LGL and Greeneridge, 1997, 1998,

1999a; Thompson et al. 1998), it is

unlikely that pinnipeds would be

harassed or injured by low frequency

sounds from a seismic source unless

32324 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Notices

they were within relatively close

proximity of the seismic array. For

permanent injury, pinnipeds would

likely need to remain in the high-noise

field for extended periods of time.

Existing evidence also suggests that,

while seals may be capable of hearing

sounds from seismic arrays, they appear

to tolerate intense pulsatile sounds

without known effect once they learn

that there is no danger associated with

the noise (see, for example, NMFS/

Washington Department of Wildlife,

1995). In addition, they will apparently

not abandon feeding or breeding areas

due to exposure to these noise sources

(Richardson et al., 1991) and may

habituate to certain noises over time.

Since seismic work is fairly common in

Beaufort Sea waters, pinnipeds have

been previously exposed to seismic

noise and may not react to it after initial

exposure.

For a discussion on the anticipated

effects of ships, boats, and aircraft on

marine mammals and their food

sources, please refer to the application

(WesternGeco, 2001). Information on

these effects is preliminarily adopted by

NMFS as the best information available

on this subject.

Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected

to Be Taken

WesternGeco estimates that the

following numbers of marine mammals

may be subject to Level B harassment,

as defined in 50 CFR 216.3:

Species Population Size

Takes by Harassment in 2001

Maximum Number1 Probable2

Bowhead whale 8,200

160 dB criterion - 1,000 <500

20 km criterion - 2,630 1,300

Gray whale 26,000 <10 0

Beluga whale 39,258 250 <150

Ringed seal3 1–1.5 million 400 <200

Spotted seal3 >200,000 10 <2

Bearded seal3 >300,000 50 <15

1 The maximum number that might be taken if seismic surveys are operable during the September/October period and the bowhead migration

passes unusually close to shore as in 1997. 2 The number that could be taken under the most likely operating conditions. 3 Some individual seals may be harassed more than once.

Estimates of Marine Mammal Takes

Estimates of takes by harassment will

be made through vessel and/or aerial

surveys. Preliminarily, WesternGeco

will estimate the number of (1) marine

mammals observed within the area

strongly ensonified by the OBC seismic

vessel (see Mitigation section below for

area description); (2) marine mammals

observed showing apparent avoidance

or disturbance reactions to seismic

pulses (e.g., heading away from the

seismic vessel in an atypical direction);

(3) marine mammals estimated to be

subject to take by type (1) or (2) when

no monitoring observations were

possible; and (4) bowhead whales

whose migration routes came within 20

km or greater (actual distance

dependent on a combination of 1996–

1998 and 2001 data) of the operating

OBC seismic vessel, or would have if

they had not been displaced farther

offshore.

Effects of Seismic Noise and Other

Activities on Subsistence Needs

The disturbance and potential

displacement of marine mammals by

sounds from seismic activities are the

principle concerns related to

subsistence use of the area. The harvest

of marine mammals (mainly bowhead

whales, but also ringed and bearded

seals) is central to the culture and

subsistence economies of the coastal

North Slope communities. In particular,

if migrating bowhead whales are

displaced farther offshore by elevated

noise levels, the harvest of these whales

could be more difficult and dangerous

for hunters. The harvest could also be

affected if bowhead whales become

more ‘‘skittish’’ when exposed to

seismic noise.

Nuiqsut is the community closest to

the area of the proposed activity. The

communities of Barrow and Kaktovik

also harvest resources that pass through

the general area, but do not regularly

hunt in the planned seismic exploration

area. Subsistence hunters from all three

communities conduct an annual hunt

for migrating bowhead whales during

the autumn months. In recent years,

Nuiqsut whalers typically take two to

four whales each year (WesternGeco,

2001). Nuiqsut whalers concentrate

their efforts on areas north and east of

Cross Island, generally in water depths

greater than 20 m (65 ft).

Whalers from the village of Kaktovik

search for whales east, north, and west

of the village. Kaktovik is located 72 km

(45 mi) east of the easternmost end of

WesternGeco’s planned 2001 seismic

exploration area.

Whalers from the village of Barrow

search for bowhead whales much farther

from the planned seismic area, > 200 km

(>125 mi) to the west (WesternGeco,

2001).

The location of the proposed seismic

activity is south of the center of the

westward migration route of bowhead

whales, but there is some limited

overlap with the southern limit of the

migration. Seismic monitoring results

from 1996-1998 indicate that most

bowhead whales avoid the area within

about 20 km (12.4 mi) around the airgun

array when it is operating, and some

avoid the area within 30 km (18.6 mi).

In addition, bowhead whales may be

able to hear the sounds emitted by the

seismic array out to a distance of 50 km

(31.1 mi) or more, depending on the

ambient noise level and the efficiency of

sound propagation along the path

between the seismic vessel and the

whale (Miller et al., 1997).

Cross Island, the principle field camp

location for Nuiqsut whalers, is located

within the general area of the proposed

2001 seismic area. Thus, the possibility

and timing of potential seismic

operations in the Cross Island area

requires WesternGeco to provide NMFS

with either (1) a Plan of Cooperation

with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling

Commission (AEWC) and the North

Slope whaling communities, or (2)

measures that have been or will be taken

to avoid any unmitigable adverse impact

on the availability of these animals for

subsistence needs. WesternGeco’s

application has preliminarily identified

those measures that will be taken to

minimize any adverse effect on

subsistence. In addition, the timing of

seismic operations will be addressed in

a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA)

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Notices 32325

with the Nuiqsut whalers and the

AEWC (WesternGeco, 2001). Also, the

monitoring plan proposed by

WesternGeco (2001) is expected to

provide information that will help

resolve uncertainties about the effects of

seismic exploration on the accessibility

of bowhead whales to hunters.

Nuiqsut hunters also hunt seals for

subsistence purposes. Most seal hunting

has been during the early summer in

open water. Boat crews hunt ringed,

spotted, and bearded seals. The most

important sealing area for Nuiqsut

hunters is off the Colville Delta,

extending as far west as Fish Creek and

as far east as Pingok Island. The planned

seismic exploration during the summer

has some potential to influence seal

hunting activities by residents of

Nuiqsut. During BP and Western

Geophysical’s 1996-2000 seismic

programs, an operating airgun array

apparently did not displace seals by

more than a few hundred meters (and

usually much less). Therefore, because

WesternGeco is proposing similar

mitigation and consultation procedures

this year, it is unlikely that seismic

activities would have more than a

negligible impact on Nuiqsut seal

hunting.

Anticipated Impact on Habitat

The proposed seismic activity is not

expected to cause significant and

permanent impacts on habitats used by

marine mammals, or to the food sources

they utilize. The main impact associated

with the proposed activity will be

temporarily elevated noise levels.

Prey fish often react to sounds,

especially strong and/or intermittent

sounds of low frequency (Chapman and

Hawkins, 1969; Pearson et al., 1992;

Skalski et al., 1992). Fish often habituate

to repeated strong sounds rather rapidly,

on time scales of minutes to an hour.

However, the habituation does not

endure, and resumption of the

disturbing activity may again elicit

disturbance responses from the same

fish. Fish near the airgun arrays are

likely to dive to the bottom or exhibit

some other kind of behavioral response

(WesternGeco, 2001). This would likely

have little or no impact on seal or

beluga whale feeding in the shallow

areas where seismic work is planned.

Many crustaceans can make sounds

and some Crustacea and other

invertebrates have some type of sound

receptor. However, the reactions of

zooplankton and benthic animals, the

primary prey species of bowhead and

gray whales, to sound are not known.

Zooplankton may react to the shock

wave from an airgun array when they

occur very close to the source. However,

little or no mortality is expected. A

reaction by zooplankton to a seismic

impulse would only be relevant to

bowhead whales if it caused a

concentration of zooplankton to scatter.

Pressure changes of sufficient

magnitude to cause this type of reaction

would probably occur only very close to

the source. Impacts on zooplankton

behavior are predicted to be negligible

and this would translate into negligible

impacts on feeding bowhead whales.

Physical contact with the ocean

bottom by cables and ancillary

equipment will be temporary and in a

very small fraction of the potential

survey area. The use of OBCs could

result in some short-term disturbance to

sediments and benthic organisms in the

immediate area of the cable. Recovery of

disturbed soft-bottom areas will occur in

a manner similar to that occurring after

natural disturbances by ice scour.

The 2001 OBC survey area may

overlap with areas identified as

‘‘Boulder Patch’’ habitat. If such overlap

occurs, WesternGeco will adhere to any

applicable requirements identified by

the responsible governmental agencies.

Mitigation

For the 2001 seismic operations,

WesternGeco will reduce its primary

airgun array from the 1,500 in3 used in

1998 to 1,210 in3. This reduction in

volume will lower the source levels and

result in lower received levels at each

distance compared to Western

Geophysical’s 1998 project. The smaller

volume 640 in3 airgun array consists of

sixteen 40 in3 airguns in four 4-gun

clusters. The airguns comprising this

small volume array will be spread out

horizontally, such that the energy from

the array, like that from the 1,210 in3

array, will be directed downward as far

as possible. The distances within which

received levels (see the proposed safety

radii below) can exceed 190 dB and 180

dB re 1 micro-Pa have been measured at

two airgun depths (2.3 and 5 m or 7.5

and 16.4 ft) and in two water depths (8

and 23 m or 26.2 and 75.5 ft) (Greene

and McLennan, 2000), and are reduced

relative to those around the 1998 array.

The shallower depth at which the 640

in3 array will operate will tend to

reduce the source level (and hence the

190 and 180 dB safety radii) even

farther; however, as a precautionary

approach, the 190 and 180 dB radii for

the 1,210 in3 airgun operating at 2.3 m

(7.5 ft) depth will be assumed to apply

to the 640 in3 array operating at 1 m (3.3

ft) gun depth.

Proposed safety radii for OBC seismic

operations in 2001 are based on

comprehensive measurements of the

sounds recorded in the water near the

OBC array in 1999 and analyzed by

Greene and McLennan (2000).

Vessel-based observers will monitor

marine mammal presence in the vicinity

of the seismic arrays throughout the

seismic program. To avoid the potential

for injury, WesternGeco proposes to

immediately shut down the seismic

source if seals and/or whales are sighted

within the proposed safety radii. The

proposed safety radii are as follows:

SOURCE (in3) AIRGUN DEPTH (m/ft) WATER DEPTH (m/ft)

SAFETY RADII(m/ft)

190 dB

(Seals)

180 dB

(Whales)

1210 2.3/7.5 <10/<32.8 100 150

1210 2.3/7.5 >10/>32.8 160 550

1210 5/16.4 <10/<32.8 160 350

1210 5/16.4 >10/>32.8 260 900

640 1/3.3 <10/<32.8 100 150

640 1/3.3 >10/>32.8 160 550

In addition, WesternGeco proposes to

ramp-up the 1,210 in3 and 640 in3

seismic sources to operating levels at a

rate no greater than 6 dB per minute.

Under normal operational conditions

(source vessel speed at least 4 knots), a

ramp-up would be required after the

array has been inactive for a period

lasting 1 minute or longer. If the towing

speed is reduced to 3 knots or less, it is

proposed that a ramp-up would be

required after the array has been

inactive for a period lasting 2 minutes

or longer. Ramp-up will begin with an

air volume discharge not exceeding 80

32326 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Notices

in3 for the 1,210 in3, and 40 in3 for the

640 in3 array. Additional guns will be

added at appropriate intervals so as to

limit the rate of increase in source level

to 6 dB per minute.

Monitoring

As part of its application,

WesternGeco provided a monitoring

plan for assessing impacts to marine

mammals from seismic surveys in the

Beaufort Sea. This monitoring plan is

described in WesternGeco (2001) and in

LGL, Ltd. and Greeneridge Sciences Inc.

(2001). As required by the MMPA, this

monitoring plan will be subject to a

peer-review panel of technical experts

prior to formal acceptance by NMFS.

WesternGeco plans to conduct the

following monitoring:

Vessel-based Visual Monitoring

It is proposed that one or two marine

mammal observers aboard the seismic

source vessel will search for and

observe marine mammals whenever

seismic operations are in progress and

for at least 30 minutes before the

planned start of seismic transmissions.

These observers will scan the area

immediately around the vessels with

reticle binoculars during the daytime.

Laser rangefinding binoculars will be

available to assist with distance

estimation. If operations continue after

mid-August, when the duration of

darkness increases, image intensifiers

and additional light sources will be

used to illuminate the safety zone (see

application for more detail).

A total of four observers (three trained

biologists and one Inupiat observer/

communicator) will be based aboard the

seismic source vessel Arctic Star. They

will work in teams of two, with

individual watches limited to no more

than 4 consecutive hours.

A total of two observers will be based

aboard the seismic source vessel

Peregrine. Individual watches will be

limited to no more than 4 consecutive

hours. In addition, wheelhouse staff

aboard the Peregrine will assist in

maintaining a watch for marine

mammals. If operations continue for

substantially more than 12 hours per

day, 1 or 2 additional observers will be

required on a rotating basis.

When marine mammals are detected

within or about to enter the safety zone

designated to prevent injury to the

animals (see Mitigation), the

geophysical crew leader will be notified

and the airgun(s) will be shut down

immediately.

Aerial Surveys

If OBC seismic work continues after

August 31, 2001, aerial surveys by

WesternGeco’s marine mammal

contractor, LGL Ltd., would occur from

the date on which OBC seismic

operations commence until 1 day after

the OBC seismic operations end. If OBC

seismic work is suspended during the

bowhead subsistence hunting season,

but resumes later in the autumn, aerial

surveys will commence (or resume)

when OBC seismic work resumes.

WesternGeco proposes to continue

aerial surveys until 1 day after OBC

seismic work ends.

The primary objective of the aerial

surveys will be to document the

occurrence, distribution, and

movements of bowhead whales, and

(secondarily) beluga and gray whales in

and near the area where they might be

affected by the seismic pulses. These

observations will be used to estimate the

level of harassment takes and to assess

the possibility that seismic operations

affect the accessibility of bowhead

whales for subsistence hunting.

Pinnipeds will be recorded when seen,

although survey altitude will be too

high for systematic surveys of seals.

Sonobuoys will be dropped to

document seismic and ambient noise at

offshore locations, including locations

near whales.

WesternGeco proposes to fly at 300 m

(1,000 ft) in areas where no whaling is

underway, but it may reduce that

altitude to no less than 275 m (900 ft)

under low cloud conditions. In

addition, and subject to the terms of the

2001 CAA with subsistence

communities, surveys may be flown at

457 m (1500 ft) altitude over areas

where whaling is occurring on that date

and should avoid direct overflights of

whaleboats and Cross Island, where

whalers from Nuiqsut are based during

their autumn whale hunt.

The daily aerial surveys are proposed

to cover a grid of 18 north-south lines

spaced 8 km (5 mi) apart and extending

seaward to about the 100 m (328 ft)

depth contour (typically about 65 km

(40.4 mi) offshore). This grid will extend

from about 65 km (40.3 mi) east to 65

km (40.3 mi) west of the area in which

seismic operations are underway on that

date. This survey design will provide

extended coverage to determine the

eastward and westward extent of the

offshore displacement of whales by

seismic operations. In 2001, no

‘‘intensive’’ grid surveys are planned to

be conducted because very few whales

occur within 20 km (12.4 mi) of the

seismic operation.

Detailed information on the aerial

survey program can be found in

WesternGeco(2001) and in LGL Ltd. and

Greeneridge Sciences Inc. (2001), which

are incorporated in this document by

citation.

Acoustical Measurements

The acoustic measurement program

proposed for 2001 is designed to

provide, in conjunction with existing

results from previous years (see LGL

and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., 1997,

1998, 1999), the specific acoustic data

needed to document the seismic sounds

to which marine mammals will be

exposed in 2001. Proposed emphasis is

on situations and locations not studied

in detail during previous operations.

WesternGeco has two basic objectives

for collecting acoustic measurements,

one physical and one biological. The

physical acoustics objective is to

determine the characteristics of airgun

array pulses as received in the bowhead

migration corridor at varying distances

offshore and to the east of the area of

seismic exploration in 2001 and in

1996–98 plus 2001 combined. Pulse

characteristics to be determined are

received levels and pulse durations

versus range offshore and to the east,

spectral properties, and signal-toambient ratios. These measurements

will only be made if seismic operations

continue into September/October. The

biological objective is to determine

whether there are differences in the

pattern of bowhead call detection rates

near, offshore of, and east of the seismic

exploration area at times with and

without active seismic operations based

on 2001 data and combined 1996-98 and

2001 data. If there are differences, then

WesternGeco proposes to use the

combined acoustic and aerial survey

data to evaluate whether the noiserelated differences in call detection rate

are attributable to differences in calling

behavior, whale distribution, or a

combination of the two.

In 2001, the acoustic measurement

program is planned to include (1)

deployment in late August/September of

autonomous seafloor acoustic recorders

(ASARs) to provide continuous acoustic

data for extended periods, and (2) use of

air-dropped sonobuoys in September/

October. WesternGeco proposes to use

these methods only if OBC surveys

occur in September/October.

(1) The ASARs would be placed on

the sea bottom at three locations in late

August or September if OBC seismic

work extends into the September/

October 2001 period. This method

provides a large number of

measurements of received

characteristics of seismic pulses in the

whale migration corridor well offshore

and east of the area of OBC seismic

exploration. ASARs would also provide

continuous data on whale calling

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Notices 32327

patterns at times with and times without

airgun operations. These recorders

would also collect data on ambient

noise levels.

(2) Sonobuoys would be dropped and

monitored from survey aircraft during

September/October (if the seismic

operations are continuing at that time)

at an average rate of about two

sonobuoys per day of aerial surveys on

days when bowhead whales are seen.

This method provides data on received

levels and other characteristics of

seismic pulses received in the bowhead

whale migration corridor, including

some of the specific locations where

bowhead whales are observed.

Sonobuoys would also provide the

ambient noise data needed to estimate

signal-to-noise ratios for seismic pulses

received by whales.

For a more detailed description of

planned monitoring activities, please

refer to the application and the

Technical Monitoring Plan

(WesternGeco, 2001; LGL Ltd. and

Greeneridge Sciences Inc., 2001).

Reporting

WesternGeco will provide an initial

report on 2001 activities to NMFS

within 90 days after the end of the

seismic program. This report will

summarize dates and locations of

seismic operations, marine mammal

sightings (dates, times, locations,

behaviors, associated seismic survey

activities), estimates of the amount and

nature of all takes by harassment or in

other ways, and any apparent effects on

accessibility of marine mammals to

subsistence users.

A final technical report will be

provided by WesternGeco no later than

April 30, 2002. The final technical

report will contain a description of the

methods, results, and interpretation of

all monitoring tasks.

Consultation

Under section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act (ESA), NMFS completed an

informal consultation on the issuance of

an IHA for similar activities on July 26,

1999. If an authorization to incidentally

harass listed marine mammals is issued

under the MMPA for this activity,

NMFS will issue an Incidental Take

Statement under section 7 of the ESA.

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)

In 1999, NMFS conducted an

environmental assessment (EA) on the

impacts of conducting seismic surveys

during the open water season in the U.S.

Beaufort Sea. In that analysis NMFS

determined that neither the

authorization for the harassment of

small numbers of several species of

marine mammals incidental to

conducting seismic surveys nor the

alternatives to that action would

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment. Since this

proposed action by WesternGeco, LLC

does not differ from actions previously

analyzed by NMFS under the 1999 EA,

this action is categorically excluded

from further NEPA review (NOAA NAO

216–6). A copy of the 1999 EA is

available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Preliminary Conclusions

NMFS has preliminarily determined

that the short-term impact of conducting

seismic surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort

Sea will result, at worst, in a temporary

modification in behavior by certain

species of cetaceans and possibly by

pinnipeds. While behavioral

modifications may be made by these

species to avoid the resultant noise, this

behavioral change is expected to have a

negligible impact on the animals.

While the number of potential

incidental harassment takes will depend

on the annual variability in distribution

and abundance of marine mammals

within the area of seismic operations,

due to the distribution and abundance

of marine mammals during the

projected period of activity and the

location of the proposed seismic activity

in waters generally too shallow and

distant from the edge of the pack ice for

most marine mammals of concern, the

number of potential harassment takings

is estimated to be small. In addition, no

take by injury and/or death is

anticipated, and the potential for

temporary or permanent hearing

impairment will be minimized through

the incorporation of the mitigation

measures mentioned in this document.

No rookeries, mating grounds, yearround areas of concentrated feeding, or

other areas of special significance for

marine mammals occur within or near

the planned area of operations during

the season of operations.

Because bowhead whales are east of

the seismic area in the Canadian

Beaufort Sea until late August/early

September, seismic activities are not

expected to impact subsistence hunting

of bowhead whales prior to that date.

After August 31, 2001, until 1 day after

the OBC seismic operations end, aerial

survey flights for bowhead whale

assessments are proposed to be

undertaken by WesternGeco. If OBC

seismic work is suspended during the

bowhead subsistence hunting season,

but resumes later in the autumn, aerial

surveys will commence (or resume)

when OBC seismic work resumes. The

proposed duration for aerial surveys

will be a reduction from previous years.

WesternGeco believes this reduction is

appropriate because some of the main

questions about disturbance to bowhead

whales from a nearshore seismic

operation were answered by the 1996-

1998 monitoring projects. In addition,

the MMS expects to conduct its broadscale aerial survey work from

approximately August 31 until the end

of the bowhead migration in October.

WesternGeco believes that this

combined aerial survey data will

provide sufficient information to

estimate the numbers of bowhead

whales taken by harassment.

Appropriate mitigation measures to

avoid an unmitigable adverse impact on

the availability of bowhead whales for

subsistence needs will be the subject of

consultation between WesternGeco and

subsistence users.

Open-water seismic exploration in the

Alaskan Beaufort Sea does have some

potential to influence seal hunting

activities by residents of Nuiqsut.

However, because the main summer

sealing by the village of Nuiqsut is

conducted off the Colville Delta, west of

the proposed survey area, and the zone

of influence by seismic sources on seals

is expected to be fairly small (less than

a few hundred meters), NMFS believes

that WesternGeco’s OBC seismic survey

will not have an unmitigable adverse

impact on the availability of seals for

subsistence uses.

Proposed Authorization

Provided the previously mentioned

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting

requirements are incorporated, NMFS

proposes to issue an IHA to

WesternGeco for an OBC seismic survey

during the 2001 Alaskan Beaufort Sea

open water season. NMFS has

preliminarily determined that the

proposed seismic activity would result

in the harassment of only small

numbers of bowhead whales, beluga

whales, ringed seals, bearded seals, and

possibly spotted seals and gray whales;

would have no more than a negligible

impact on these marine mammal stocks;

and would not have an unmitigable

adverse impact on the availability of

marine mammal stocks for subsistence

uses.

Information Solicited

NMFS requests interested persons to

submit comments, and information,

concerning this request (see ADDRESSES).

32328 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Notices

Dated: June 7, 2001.

Wanda L. Cain,

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected

Resources.

[FR Doc. 01–15060 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

[CPSC Docket No. 01–C0008]

Fisher-Price, Inc., a Corporation

Provisional Acceptance of a

Settlement Agreement and Order

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: It is the policy of the

Commission to publish settlements

which it provisionally accepts under the

Consumer Product Safety Act in the

Federal Register in accordance with the

terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published

below is a provisionally-accepted

Settlement Agreement with FisherPrice, Inc., a corporation containing a

civil penalty of $1,100,000.

DATES: Any interested person may ask

the Commission not to accept this

agreement or otherwise comment on its

contents by filing a written request with

the Office of the Secretary by June 29,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to

comment on this Settlement Agreement

should send written comments to the

Comment 01–C0008, Office of the

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission, Washington, DC 20207.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roald G. Yelenik, Trial Attorney, Office

of Compliance and Enforcement,

Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301)

504–0626, 1351.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of

the Agreement and Order appears

below.

Dated: June 7, 2001.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Acting Secretary.

Settlement Agreement and Order

1. This Settlement Agreement, made

by and between the staff (‘‘the staff’’) of

the U.S. Consumer Product Safety

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) and

Fisher-Price, Inc. (‘‘Fisher-Price’’ or

‘‘Respondent’’), a corporation, in

accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20 of the

Commission’s Procedures for

Investigations, Inspections, and

Inquiries under the Consumer Product

Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’), is a settlement of

the staff allegations set forth below.

The Parties

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. Respondent is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of

the State of Delaware with its principal

corporate offices located in East Aurora,

N.Y. Fisher-Price designs and

distributes toys and juvenile products.

In May 1994, the parent corporation of

Fisher-Price acquired Kransco, the

manufacturer of ‘‘Power Wheels’’ rideon cars and trucks. Subsequently,

Fisher-Price designed, marketed and

distributed ‘‘Power Wheels’’ ride on cars

and trucks.

Staff Allegations

4. Between 1994 and October 1998,

Fisher-Price distributed nationwide, and

prior to that time, Kransco

manufactured and sold nationwide, a

total of approximately 10 million

battery-powered Super 6 and 12-volt

‘‘Power Wheels’’ ride-on toy cars and

trucks (the ‘‘vehicle(s)’’) in nearly 100

different models. These vehicles are

intended for children two to seven years

old.

5. The vehicles are ‘‘consumer

product(s)’’ and Respondent is a

‘‘distributor’’ of ‘‘consumer product(s),’’

which were ‘‘distributed in commerce’’

as those terms are defined in sections

3(a)(1), (5), (11) and (12) of the CPSA,

15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (5), (11) and (12).

6. The vehicles are defective because

their electrical components can

overheat, melt, short circuit, or

otherwise fail and thereby cause fires. If

this should occur, children and other

consumers could suffer serious injuries

or death. Additionally, wiring problems

can prevent the vehicles from stopping,

thereby creating the potential for

collisions that could cause serious

injury or death.

7. Between early 1995 and July 1998,

Respondent received reports of more

than 116 fires involving the vehicles

and reports of more than 1,800 incidents

of the vehicles’ electrical components

overheating, short-circuiting, melting or

failing. This resulted in at least nine

minor burn injuries to children, and up

to $300,000 in property damage to 22

houses and garages. Moreover, FisherPrice was aware of at least 71 incidents

involving the products’ failure to stop,

resulting in six minor injuries when the

vehicles hit a car, truck, pole, window

or fence.

8. Despite being aware of the

information set forth in paragraphs 6

and 7 above, Fisher-Price did not

provide a written report to the

Commission until March 1997, when it

partially responded to the Commission

staff’s February 1997 request for a Full

Report. However, Respondent did not

fully comply with the staff’s

investigational requests until July 1998.

9. Although Respondent had obtained

sufficient information to reasonably

support the conclusion that these

vehicles contained defects which could

create a substantial product hazard, or

created an unreasonable risk of serious

injury or death, it failed to report such

information to the Commission as

required by section 15(b) of the CPSA.

By failing to report, Fisher-Price

violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15

U.S.C. 2068(a)(4).

10. Respondent committed this failure

to report to the Commission

‘‘knowingly’’, as the term ‘‘knowingly’’

is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA,

15 U.S.C. 2069(d), and Respondent is

subject to civil penalties under section

20 of the CPSA.

Response of Fisher-Price

11. Respondent denies that the

vehicles contain defects which could

create a substantial product hazard

pursuant to section 15(a) of the CPSA,

15 U.S.C. 2064(a).

12. Respondent denies that it violated

the reporting requirements of section

15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b).

13. Respondent denies that the

information available to it reasonably

supported the conclusion that the

vehicles contained a defect which could

create a substantial product hazard or

created an unreasonable risk of serious

injury or death, and, therefore, no report

was required under section 15(b) of the

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b).

14. Notwithstanding its denial that

the vehicles contain a defect which

could create a substantial product

hazard, and notwithstanding its denial

that the vehicles create an unreasonable

risk of serious injury or death,

Respondent, nevertheless, cooperated

with the staff in recalling the products.

15. Respondent agrees to this

Settlement Agreement and Order solely

to avoid incurring additional legal costs

and it does not constitute nor is it

evidence of an admission of any fault,

any liability, any violation of any law,

or any wrongdoing by Respondent.

16. Respondent enters into this

Agreement solely to settle the

allegations of the staff that a civil

penalty is appropriate.

Agreement of the Parties

17. The Commission has jurisdiction

over this matter and over Fisher-Price

under the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051–2084.