Federal Register Vol. 80, No.185,

The Federal Government's patent rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Purpose and Need for Action

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received applications for leasing approximately 5,600 acres of Salmon-Challis National Forest (SCNF) lands for exploration and development for geothermal energy production. The SCNF must decide whether these lands are available for leasing by the BLM and, if so, under what stipulations for protection of surface resources. The entire area plus an additional approximately 100 acres for power transmission will be considered in the analysis in the event of future similar interest.

Approximately 5,600 acres of the SCNF lands within the project area would be allocated as open to geothermal leasing subject to existing laws, regulations, formal orders and stipulations attached to the lease form, and the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. Stipulations proposed include: No surface occupancy; controlled surface use; and timing limitations.

The Forest Service, Salmon-Challis National Forest, is the lead agency in this analysis.

The responsible official is the Forest Supervisor of the Salmon-Challis National Forest.

The decision will be whether to implement the action as proposed, implement an alternative which allows leasing under different stipulations or conditions, or not to implement the action. If the decision is to authorize leasing, that decision with associated stipulations and conditions will become an amendment to the Salmon-Challis National Forest Plan or will become a part of the Revised Forest Plan.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The complete Proposed Action, with accompanying maps and descriptions of proposed stipulations, will be posted at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/scnf/landmanagement/projects.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.

Title: Electronic Mailing List Subscription Form.

OMB Number: 0518-0036.

Expiration Date: 2/29/2016.

Type of Request: Approval for data collection from individuals working in the area of nutrition.

Abstract: This form contains seven items and is used to collect information about participants who are interested in joining an electronic discussion group. The form collects data to see if a person is eligible to join the discussion group. Because these electronic discussion groups are only available to people who work in the area of nutrition, it is necessary to gather this information. The questionnaire asks for the person's name, email address, job affiliation, telephone number, and address.

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

Respondents: Individuals who are interested in joining an electronic discussion group.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,000 per year.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,000 minutes or 16.66 hours.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology. Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. FAX: (202)720-8435 or email: [email protected].

Title: 7 CFR part 1717, subpart Y, Settlement of Debt Owed by Electric Borrowers.

OMB Control Number: 0572-0116.

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

Abstract: The Rural Utilities Service makes mortgage loans and loan guarantees to electric systems to provide and improve electric service in rural areas pursuant to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) (RE Act). This information collection requirement stems from passage of Public Law 104-127, on April 4, 1996, which amended section 331(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) to extend to RUS the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to settle debts with respect to loans made or guaranteed by RUS. Only those electric borrowers that are unable to fully repay their debts to the Government and who apply to RUS for relief will be affected by this information collection.

The collection will require only that information which is essential for determining: The need for debt settlement; the amount of relief that is needed; the amount of debt that can be repaid; the scheduling of debt repayment; and, the range of opportunities for enhancing the amount of debt that can be recovered. The information to be collected will be similar to that which any prudent lender would require to determine whether debt settlement is required and the amount of relief that is needed. Since the need for relief is expected to vary substantially from case to case, so will the required information collection.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,000 hours per response.

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions and other businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,000 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Rebecca Hunt, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis at (202) 205-3660. FAX: (202) 720-8435.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval.

All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The CDAC is comprised of 19 members, the Commerce Chief Data Officer, and the Economic and Statistics Administration. The Council provides an organized and continuing channel of communication between recognized experts in the data industry (collection, compilation, analysis, dissemination and privacy protection) and the Department of Commerce. The CDAC provides advice and recommendations, to include process and infrastructure improvements, to the Secretary, DOC and the DOC data-bureau leadership on ways to make Commerce data easier to find, access, use, combine and disseminate. The aim of this advice shall be to maximize the value of Commerce data to all users including governments, businesses, communities, academia, and individuals.

The Committee is established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10(a)(b)).

Background

On December 23, 2014, Sino-Maple requested that the Department initiate an expedited CCR to confirm that Sino-Maple is the successor-in-interest to Jiafeng for purposes of determining AD liabilities.2 For a complete description of events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3

Based on this information, the Department initiated this CCR on March 13, 2015, explaining that, while there was sufficient evidence to initiate a CCR, the Department determined not to conduct its review on an expedited basis by publishing the preliminary results in conjunction with its notice of initiation. Specifically, we noted that the purported predecessor company, Jiafeng, was still in a 180-day liquidation period. We stated that we intended to issue additional questionnaires to Sino-Maple, as authorized by 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2), upon completion of the 180-day liquidation period, seeking evidence that Jiafeng has been terminated and that Jiafeng's liquidation was completed.4 On June 22, 2015, Sino-Maple submitted this evidence.5

The merchandise covered by the order includes multilayered wood flooring, subject to certain exceptions. Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; and 9801.00.2500.

While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

A complete description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and ACCESS is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

In accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, we are conducting this CCR based upon the information contained in Sino-Maple's submissions. In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base.6 While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to be the successor to the predecessor if the resulting operations of the successor are not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor.7 Thus, if the record demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the predecessor company, the Department may assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor.8 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Based on the record evidence, we preliminarily determine that Sino-Maple is the successor-in-interest to Jiafeng because Sino-Maple operates materially the same as Jiafeng with respect to the subject merchandise, albeit in a new location. Specifically, we find that any changes that may have occurred after Jiafeng became Sino-Maple did not constitute material changes to management, supplier relationships, customer relationships, or ownership/legal structure with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum appears in the Appendix to this notice.

If the Department upholds these preliminary results in the final results, Sino-Maple will be assigned the cash deposit rate currently assigned to Jiafeng with respect to the subject merchandise (i.e., 13.74 percent). We will also instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of entries of multilayered wood flooring exported by Sino-Maple, effective on the publication date of the final results, at the AD cash deposit rate assigned to Jiafeng.

Interested parties may submit written comments by no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal Register.9 Rebuttals, limited to issues raised in the written comments, may be filed by no later than five days after the written comments are due.10 Parties that submit written comments and rebuttals are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.11 All briefs are to be filed electronically using ACCESS.12 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day on which it is due.13

Any interested party may request a hearing to the Assistant Secretary of Enforcement and Compliance using ACCESS within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.14 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.15 If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.16

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department intends to issue the final results of this CCR not later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated.

The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221.

In January 2003, the non-market economy suspension agreement signed in October 1997 on cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“CTL plate”) from the Russian Federation was replaced with a market-economy agreement with Russian producers under section 734(b) of the Act. See Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian Federation, 68 FR 3859 (Jan. 27, 2003).1 In entering into the Agreement, the Department determined, under section 734(b) of the Act, that the Agreement would eliminate completely sales at less than fair value of the imported subject merchandise and, under section 734(d) of the Act, that suspension of the investigation was in the “public interest” and could be monitored effectively. Since implementation of the Agreement in 2003, the Department has been calculating semi-annual “normal values” (“NVs”), or minimum selling prices, for Joint Stock Company Severstal (“Severstal”), the one Russian signatory producer that has requested NVs.

On May 5, 2015, the domestic interested parties filed a request that the Department terminate the Agreement because it is no longer in the public interest and because Severstal may have violated the Agreement. On May 14, 2015, the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation (“Economy Ministry”) filed a letter in response to the domestic interested parties' request to terminate the Agreement. On May 18, 2015, Severstal filed a letter in response to the domestic interested parties' request to terminate the Agreement.

The products covered by the Agreement are CTL plate from the Russian Federation. This merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the Agreement is dispositive. For a full description of the scope of this Agreement, see Appendix B of the Agreement.

As discussed above, the Department has received a request to terminate the Agreement from the domestic interested parties and is currently evaluating the request. The Agreement, at Section F, provides that “{i}f the Department determines that the Agreement is being or has been violated or no longer meets the requirements of section 734(b) or (d) of the Act, the Department shall take action it determines appropriate under section 734(i) of the Act and the regulations.”

Section 734(i) of the Act provides that where, as here, the investigation was completed, the Department shall publish a determination suspending liquidation and issue an antidumping order under section 736(a) of the Act if the Department determines that there has been a violation of the Agreement, or the Agreement no longer meets certain statutory requirements, including the “public interest” requirement under section 734(d)(1) of the Act. The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.209(c)(1) state that if the Department has reason to believe that a suspension agreement no longer meets the requirements of section 734(d) of the Act, including if suspension of the investigation is no longer in the “public interest,” it will publish a notice inviting comment on the suspension agreement. Based on the request to terminate, we find that the requirements of 19 CFR 351.209(c)(1) have been met, and as such, are issuing this notice to seek comments to determine if suspension of the investigation is no longer in the “public interest.” Although the domestic interested parties alleged that Severstal may have violated the terms of the Agreement, we are not soliciting comments on the alleged violation.

The Department will make its determination and if appropriate, take necessary action, in accordance with section 734(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.209(c). Further, in making our determination, the Department will consider imports into the United States from all sources of the merchandise, as described in Section A of the Agreement. We also will consider factors including, but not limited to, the following: volume of trade, pattern of trade, whether or not the reseller is an original equipment manufacturer, and the reseller's export price. See Agreement, Section B.

Interested parties may submit comments on whether the Agreement is in the public interest via Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”) no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.2 Rebuttal comments, limited to issues raised in the affirmative comments, may be submitted via ACCESS no later than 45 days after the date of publication of this notice by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

When submitting comments via ACCESS, interested parties must upload their submissions to the segment in ACCESS entitled “Suspension Agreement.” The Department intends to address any comments in its determination.

For a complete description of the events following the publication of the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's AD and Countervailing Duty (CVD) Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The products covered by the order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings: 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, 2005.99.9700, and of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised by the parties in the case briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice.

Upon review of the comments received, the Department has determined that Shanfu II operates in most material respects as a different business entity than Shanfu I, as discussed in the Preliminary Results and the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Furthermore, Shanfu I officially and effectively ceased to operate for two years, having dissolved and de-registered in 2012. Therefore, the Department adopts the Preliminary Results and finds that Shanfu II is not the successor-in-interest to Shanfu I.

As a result of this determination, the Department finds that Yongjia and Shanfu II are subject to the cash deposit rate currently assigned to the PRC-wide entity with respect to the subject merchandise, i.e., $4.71 per kilogram.4 Consequently, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to continue suspension of liquidation and to collect estimated antidumping duties for all shipments of subject merchandise produced by Shanfu II and exported by Yongjia at the current cash deposit rate assigned to the PRC-wide entity of $4.71 per kilogram.5 This cash deposit requirement shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 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 sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216.

In accordance with Public Law 99-574, the National Bureau of Standards Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved a demonstration project plan, “Alternative Personnel Management System (APMS) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),” and published the plan in the Federal Register on October 2, 1987 (52 FR 37082). The published demonstration project plan was modified twice, once to clarify certain NIST authorities (54 FR 21331, May 17, 1989) and once to revise the performance appraisal system and the pay administration system in order to better link pay with performance (55 FR 39220, September 25, 1990). The APMS was made permanent in Section 10 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 110 Stat. 775 (Mar. 7, 1996) (codified at 15 U.S.C. 275 note), and the project plan and subsequent amendments were consolidated in the final APMS plan, which was published in the Federal Register on October 21, 1997 (62 FR 54604). NIST published seven subsequent amendments to the final APMS plan: One on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 23996), which became effective upon publication in the Federal Register; one on July 15, 2008 (73 FR 40500), which became effective on October 1, 2008; one on July 21, 2009 (74 FR 35841), which became effective upon publication in the Federal Register; one on January 5, 2011 (76 FR 539), which became effective upon publication in the Federal Register; one on June 19, 2012 (77 FR 36485), which became effective upon publication in the Federal Register; one on August 13, 2012 (77 FR 48128), which became effective upon publication in the Federal Register; and one on August 24, 2012 (77 FR 51518), which became effective upon publication in the Federal Register. NIST published a correction to the final APMS plan on July 21, 2009 (74 FR 35843), which became effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

The plan provides for modifications to be made as experience is gained, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached on how the system is working. This notice modifies the classification structure for the Administrative (ZA) career path, Pay Bands I through IV, based upon a classification review of the level of difficulty and responsibility associated with each Pay Band.

I. Abstract

This request is for revision and extension of a currently approved information collection.

In 1972, in response to intense pressure on United States (U.S.) coastal resources, and because of the importance of U.S. coastal areas, the U.S. Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. The CZMA authorized a federal program to encourage coastal states and territories to develop comprehensive coastal management programs. The CZMA has been reauthorized on several occasions, most recently with the enactment of the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1996. (CZMA as amended). The program is administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn has delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Ocean Services (NOS).

The coastal zone management grants provide funds to states and territories to: Implement federally-approved coastal management programs; complete information for the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) Performance Management System; develop program assessments multi-year strategies to enhance their programs within priority areas under Section 309 of the CZMA; submit documentation as described in the CZMA Section 306a on the approved coastal zone management programs; submit requests to update their federally-approved programs through amendments or program changes; and develop and submit state coastal nonpoint pollution control programs (CNP) as required under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments.

Revision: The CZMP Performance Measurement System has been revised to reduce the number of measures on which state programs are required to report, resulting in an overall decrease in reporting burden for the performance measurement system. The assessment process under CZMA Section 309 has also been refined to rely more on readily available existing data and allow states to more quickly focus their assessments on high-priority enhancement areas.

Respondents have a choice of electronic or paper formats for submitting program documents, assessment and strategy documents, and other required materials. Grant applications are submitted electronically via Grants.gov and performance reports are submitted electronically through NOAA Grants Online. Performance measurement data is submitted through an online database. Methods of submittal for other program documents and required materials include electronic submittal via email, mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms, or submittal of electronic files on compact disc.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0119.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (revision and extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: State. Local and Tribal Governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 34.

Estimated Time per Response: Performance reports, 27 hours; assessment and strategy documents, 240 hours; Section 306a documentation, 5 hours; amendments and routine program changes, 16 hours; CNP documentation, 320 hours; CZMA Performance Management System, 24 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,133 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $850 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

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

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

The 121st SSC meeting will be held between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on October 13-14, 2015. The Council's REAC will be held between 8:30 a.m. and 1 p.m., FIAC between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. and AP between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. on October 19, 2015. The Council's Pelagic and International Standing Committee will be held between 9 a.m. and 12 noon, Program Planning and Research Standing Committee between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m., and Executive and Budget Standing Committee between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. on October 20, 2015. The 164th Council meeting will be held between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on October 21-22, 2015. In addition, the Council will host a Fishers Forum on October 17, 2015, between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.

In addition to the agenda items listed here, the SSC and Council will hear recommendations from Council advisory groups. Public comment periods will be provided throughout the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business. Background documents will be available from, and written comments should be sent to, Mr. Edwin Ebisui, Chair, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, phone: (808) 522-8220 or fax: (808) 522-8226.

Non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion and formal Council action during its 163rd meeting. However, Council action on regulatory issues will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any regulatory issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

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

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for a one-year authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment, provided that there is no potential for serious injury or mortality to result from the activity. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.

On March 3, 2015, CALTRANS submitted a request to NMFS for the potential harassment of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to the dismantling of Pier E3 of the East Span of the original SFOBB in SFB, California, in fall 2015. CALTRANS is proposing to remove the Pier E3 via highly controlled implosion with detonations. On April 16, 2015, CALTRANS submitted a revision of its request with an inclusion of a test implosion before the bridge demolition. NMFS determined that the IHA application was complete on May 1, 2015.

A detailed description of the CALTRANS SFOBB East Span Pier E3 demolition via controlled implosion is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (80 FR 44060; July 24, 2015). Since that time, no changes have been made to the proposed construction activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity.

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to CALTRANS was published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2015 (80 FR 44060). That notice described, in detail, CALTRANS' activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. During the public comment period, the NMFS received one comment letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). The Commission concurred with NMFS preliminary finding and recommended that NMFS issue the requested incidental harassment authorization, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.

The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction most likely to occur in the proposed construction area include Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi), northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena).

General information on the marine mammal species found in the San Francisco Bay can be found in Caretta et al. (2014), which is available at the following URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/po2013.pdf. Refer to that document for information on these species. A list of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action and their status are provided in Table 1. Specific information concerning these species in the vicinity of the proposed action area is provided in detail in the CALTRANS' IHA application.

The underwater impulse noise from controlled implosion for SFOBB Pier E9 demolition in San Francisco Bay has the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammal species and stocks from behavioral disturbances and temporary hearing threshold shift (TTS) in the vicinity of the action area. The Notice of Proposed IHA included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals, which is not repeated here. No instances of injury (including permanent hearing threshold shift, or PTS), serious injury, or mortality are expected as a result of CALTRANS' activity given the mitigation and monitoring measures proposed, the brief duration of the activity, and the limited scale of the activity.

The primary potential impacts to marine mammals and other marine species are associated with overpressure generated from the controlled underwater implosion, such that some fish in the immediate vicinity of the demolition site could be killed. These potential effects are discussed in detail in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA and are not repeated here.

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

For CALTRANS' proposed Pier E3 controlled implosion, NMFS is requiring CALTRANS to implement the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity as a result of the controlled underwater implosion. In addition to the measures contained in the Federal Register notice of Proposed IHA, the IHA requires CALTRANS to ensure that no harbor porpoise Level A harassment take would occur by using passive acoustic monitoring to detect harbor porpoise clicks and implement shutdown measure if clicks are detected. Furthermore, additional mitigation measures are included to ensure that no take would occur during the test implosion. No other change was made from the proposed mitigation measures published in the Federal Register notice (80 FR 44060; July 24, 2015) for the proposed IHA.

Implosion of Pier E3 will only be conducted during daylight hours and with enough time for pre and post implosion monitoring, and with good visibility when the largest exclusion zone can be visually monitored.

Prior to the Pier E3 demolition, CALTRANS should install a Blast Attenuation System (BAS) as described above to reduce the shockwave from the implosion.

Due to the different hearing sensitivities among different taxa of marine mammals, NMFS has established a series of take thresholds from underwater explosions for marine mammals belonging to different functional hearing groups (Table 2). Under these criteria, marine mammals from different taxa will have different impact zones (exclusion zones and zones of influence).

CALTRANS will establish an exclusion zone for both the mortality and Level A harassment zone (permanent hearing threshold shift or PTS, GI track injury, and slight lung injury) using the largest radius estimated harbor and northern elephant seals. Estimates are that the isopleth for PTS would extend out to a radius of 1,160 ft (354 m) for harbor and northern elephant seals to 5,800 ft (1,768 m) for harbor porpoise; covering the entire areas for both Level A harassment and mortality. As harbor porpoises are unlikely to be in the area in November, the exclusion zone boundaries would be set around the calculated distance to Level A harassment for harbor and northern elephant seals. However, real-time acoustic monitoring (i.e., active listening for vocalizations with hydrophones) also will be utilized to provide an additional level of confidence that harbor porpoises are not in the affected area.

Adherence to calculated distances to Level A harassment for pinnipeds indicates that the radius of the exclusion zone would be 1,160 ft (354 m). The exclusion zone will be monitored by protected species observers (PSOs) and if any marine mammals are observed inside the exclusion, the implosion will be delayed until the animal leaves the area or at least 30 minutes have passed since the last observation of the marine mammal. Hearing group specific exclusion zone ranges for the controlled implosion are provided in Table 3.

There is no exclusion zone for the test implosion because of the small charge to be used.

As shown in Table 2, for harbor and northern elephant seals, this will cover the area out to 212 dB peak SPL or 177 dB SEL, whichever extends out the furthest. Hydroacoustic modeling indicates this isopleth would extend out to 5,700 ft (1,737 m) from Pier E3. For harbor porpoises, this will cover the area out to 195 dB peak SPL or 146 dB SEL, whichever extends out the furthest. Hydroacoustic modeling indicates this isopleth would extend out to 26,500 ft (8,077 m) from Pier E3. As discussed previously, the presence of harbor porpoises in this area is unlikely but monitoring (including real-time acoustic monitoring) will be employed to confirm their absence. For California sea lions, the distance to the Level B TTS zone of influence will cover the area out to 212 dB peak SPL or 200 dB SEL. This distance was calculated at 470 ft (143 m) from Pier E3, well within the exclusion zone previously described. Hearing group specific Level B TTS zone of influence ranges for the controlled implosion are provided in Table 3.

Hearing group specific Level B TTS zone of influence ranges for the test implosion are provided in Table 4.

As shown in Table 2, for harbor seals and northern elephant seals, this will cover the area out to 172 dB SEL. Hydroacoustic modeling indicates this isopleth would extend out to 9,700 ft (2,957 m) from Pier E3. For harbor porpoises, this will cover the area out to 141 dB SEL. Hydroacoustic modeling indicates this isopleth would extend out to 44,500 ft (13,564 m) from Pier E3. As discussed previously, the presence of harbor porpoises in this area is unlikely but monitoring (including real-time acoustic monitoring) will be employed to confirm their absence. For California sea lions, the distance to the Level B behavioral harassment ZOI will cover the area out to 195 dB SEL. This distance was calculated at 800 ft (244 m) from Pier E3, well within the exclusion zone previously described. Hearing group specific Level B behavioral zone of influence ranges for the controlled implosion are provided in Table 3. There is no Level B behavioral ZOI for the test implosion because there would only be one detonation.

If any marine mammal is observed inside the exclusion zone of controlled implosion, the implosion will be delayed until the animal leaves the area or at least 30 minutes have passed since the last observation of the marine mammal.

If any marine mammal is observed inside the Level B ZOIs during the test implosion, the test implosion will be delayed until the animal leaves the area or at least 30 minutes have passed since the last observation of the marine mammal.

If harbor porpoise clicks are detected during passive acoustic monitoring, the implosion will be delayed for 30 minutes after the clicks are ceased.

All PSOs will be equipped with mobile phones and a VHF radio as a backup. One person will be designated as the Lead PSO and will be in constant contact with the Resident Engineer on site and the blasting crew. The Lead PSO will coordinate marine mammal sightings with the other PSOs and the real time acoustic monitor. PSOs will contact the other PSOs when a sighting is made within the exclusion zone or near the exclusion zone so that the PSOs within overlapping areas of responsibility can continue to track the animal and the Lead PSO is aware of the animal. If it is within 30 minutes of blasting and an animal has entered the exclusion zone or is near it, the Lead PSO will notify the Resident Engineer and blasting crew. The Lead PSO will keep them informed of the disposition of the animal.

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

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

• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned

• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:

(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

(2) A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of pile driving and pile removal or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

(3) A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of pile driving and pile removal, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

Based on our evaluation of the mitigation measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. CALTRANS submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.

Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:

(1) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;

(2) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;

(3) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:

Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;

(4) An increased knowledge of the affected species; and

(5) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

Monitoring for implosion impacts to marine mammals will be based on the SFOBB pile driving monitoring protocol. Pile driving has been conducted for the SFOBB construction project since 2000 with development of several NMFS-approved marine mammal monitoring plans (CALTRANS 2004; 2013). Most elements of these marine mammal monitoring plans are similar to what would be required for underwater implosions. These monitoring plans would include monitoring an exclusion zone and ZOIs for TTS and behavioral harassment described above. In addition, CALTRANS shall implement passive acoustic monitoring. All monitoring will be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs. A change is made from the Federal Register notice (80 FR 44060; July 24, 2015) for the proposed IHA to clarify that a minimum of 10 protected species observers would be required for marine mammal monitoring during the controlled implosion. No other change was made from the proposed monitoring measures published in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA.

A minimum of 8-10 PSOs would be required during the Pier E3 controlled implosion so that the exclusion zone, Level B Harassment TTS and Behavioral ZOIs, and surrounding area can be monitored. One PSO would be designated as the Lead PSO and would receive updates from other PSOs on the presence or absence of marine mammals within the exclusion zone and would notify the Blasting Supervisor of a cleared exclusion zone to the implosion.

PSOs shall be positioned near the edge of each of the threshold criteria zones and shall utilize boats, barges, bridge piers and roadway, and sites on Yerba Buena Island and Treasure Island, as described in Figure 3 of the CALTRANS Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan. The Lead PSO shall be located with the Department Engineer and the Blasting Supervisor (or person that will be in charge of detonating the charges) during the implosion.

The Lead PSO will be in contact with other PSOs and the acoustic monitors. As the time for the implosion approaches, any marine mammal sightings would be discussed between the Lead PSO, the Resident Engineer, and the Blasting Supervisor. If any marine mammals enter the exclusion zone within 30 minutes of blasting, the Lead PSO will notify the Resident Engineer and Blasting Supervisor that the implosion may need to be delayed. The Lead PSO will keep them informed of the disposition of the animal. If the animal remains in the exclusion zone, blasting will be delayed until it has left the exclusion zone. If the animal dives and is not seen again, blasting will be delayed at least 30 minutes. Once the implosion has occurred, the PSOs will continue to monitor the area for at least 60 minutes.

Although any injury or mortality from the implosion of Pier E3 is very unlikely, boat or shore surveys will be conducted for the three days following the event to determine if there are any injured or stranded marine mammals in the area. If an injured or dead animal is discovered during these surveys or by other means, the NMFS-designated stranding team will be contacted to pick up the animal. Veterinarians will treat the animal or conduct a necropsy to attempt to determine if it stranded was a result of the Pier E3 implosion.

Each PSO will record their observation position, start and end times of observations, and weather conditions (sunny/cloudy, wind speed, fog, visibility). For each marine mammal sighting, the following will be recorded, if possible:

While harbor porpoises are not expected to be within the CALTRANS' Pier E3 implosion Level B TTS ZOI (within 26,500 ft [8,077 ms]) in November, real time acoustic monitoring to confirm species absence shallow be implemented as an added measure in addition to active monitoring by trained visual PSOs. Harbor porpoises vocalize frequently with other animals within their group, and use echolocation to navigate and to locate prey. Therefore, as an additional monitoring tool, a real time acoustic monitoring system will be used to detect the presence or absence of harbor porpoises as a supplement to visual monitoring.

The system would involve two bio-acousticians monitoring the site in real time, likely near the north end of Treasure Island as most harbor porpoises appear to pass through the area north of Treasure Island before heading south toward the East Span of the SFOBB. A calibrated hydrophone or towed array would be suspended from a boat and/or several sonobuoys (acoustic information is sent via telemetry to the acoustic boat) or a hydrophone moored offshore with a cable leading to a shore based acoustic station will be deployed outside of the monitoring area of Pier E3. All equipment will be calibrated and tested prior to the implosion to ensure functionality. This system would not be able to give an accurate distance to the animal but would either determine that no cetaceans are in the area or would provide a relative distance and direction so that PSOs could search for the cetaceans and determine if those animals have entered or may enter the Pier E3 implosion area. The bio-acousticians would be in communication with the Lead PSO and would alert the crew to the presence of any cetacean approaching the monitoring area. It would also provide further confirmation that there are no cetaceans around Pier E3 in addition to the visual observations documenting no observations.

The purpose of hydroacoustic monitoring during the controlled implosion of Pier E3 is twofold: (1) To evaluate distances to marine mammal impact noise criteria; and (2) to improve the prediction of underwater noise for assessing the impact of the demolition of the remaining piers through future controlled implosions.

Monitoring of the implosion is specific to two regions around Pier E3 with unique methods, approaches, and plans for each of these regions. These regions include the “near field” and the “far field”. For Pier E3, the near field will comprise measurements taken within 500 ft of the pier while the far field will comprise measurements taken at 500 feet and all greater distances.

Measurements inside the BAS will be made with near and far field systems using PCB 138A01 transducers. At the 100-ft distance, the near field system will use another PCB 138A01 transducer while the far field system will use both a PCB 138A01 transducer and a Reson TC4013 hydrophone. Prior to activating the BAS, ambient noise levels will be measured. While the BAS is operating and before the test implosion, background noise measurements will also be made. After the test implosion, the results will be evaluated to determine if any final adjustments are needed in the measurement systems prior to the Pier E3 controlled implosion. Pressure signals will be analyzed for peak pressure and SEL values prior to the scheduled time of the Pire E3 controlled implosion.

CALTRANS is required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes earlier. This draft report would detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS would have an opportunity to provide comments on the draft report within 30 days, and if NMFS has comments, CALTRANS would address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days. If no comments are provided by NMFS after 30 days receiving the report, the draft report is considered to be final.

In addition, a stranding plan will be prepared in cooperation with the local NMFS-designated marine mammal stranding, rescue, and rehabilitation center. Although mitigation measures would likely prevent any injuries, preparations will be made in the unlikely event that marine mammals are injured. Elements of that plan would include the following:

1. The stranding crew would prepare treatment areas at the NMFS-designated facility for cetaceans or pinnipeds that may be injured from the implosion. Preparation would include equipment to treat lung injuries, auditory testing equipment, dry and wet caged areas to hold animals, and operating rooms if surgical procedures are necessary. Equipment to conduct auditory brainstem response hearing testing would be available to determine if any inner ear threshold shifts (TTS or PTS) have occurred (Thorson et al. 1999).

2. A stranding crew and a veterinarian would be on call near the Pier E3 site at the time of the implosion to quickly recover any injured marine mammals, provide emergency veterinary care, stabilize the animal's condition, and transport individuals to the NMFS-designated facility. If an injured or dead animal is found, NMFS (both the regional office and headquarters) will be notified immediately even if the animal appears to be sick or injured from other than blasting.

3. Post-implosion surveys would be conducted immediately after the event and over the following three days to determine if there are any injured or dead marine mammals in the area.

4. Any veterinarian procedures, euthanasia, rehabilitation decisions and time of release or disposition of the animal will be at the discretion of the NMFS-designated facility staff and the veterinarians treating the animals. Any necropsies to determine if the injuries or death of an animal was the result of the blast or other anthropogenic or natural causes will be conducted at the NMFS-designated facility by the stranding crew and veterinarians. The results will be communicated to both CALTRANS and to NMFS as soon as possible with a written report within a month.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [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 [Level B harassment].

Numbers of marine mammals within the Bay may be incidentally taken during demolition using controlled charges (impulse sound) related to the demolition of the original East Span of the SFOBB were calculated based on acoustic propagation models for each functional hearing group and the estimated density of each species in the project vicinity. Specifically, the takes estimates are calculated by multiplying the ensonified areas that are specific to each functional hearing group by the density of the marine mammal species.

There are no systematic line transect surveys of marine mammals within San Francisco Bay, therefore, the in water densities of harbor seals, California sea lions, and harbor porpoises were calculated from 14 years of observations during monitoring for the SFOBB construction and demolition. During the 210 days of monitoring (including 15 days of baseline monitoring in 2003), 657 harbor seals, 69 California sea lions and three harbor porpoises were observed within the waters of the east span of the SFOBB. Density estimates for other species were made from stranding data provided by the MMC (Sausalito, CA; Northern elephant seal).

Most data on harbor seal populations are collected while the seals are hauled out. This is because it is much easier to count individuals when they are out of the water. In-water density estimates rely on haul-out counts, the percentage of seals not on shore based on radio telemetry studies, and the size of the foraging range of the population. Harbor seal density in the water can vary greatly depending on weather conditions or the availability of prey. For example, during Pacific herring runs further north in the Bay (near Richardson Bay, outside of the Pier E3 hydroacoustic zone) in February 2014, very few harbor seals were observed foraging near Yerba Buena Island (YBI) or transiting through the SFOBB area for approximately two weeks. Sightings went from a high of 16 harbor seal individuals foraging or in transit in one day to 0-2 seals per day in transit or foraging through the SFOBB area (CALTRANS 2014). Calculated harbor seal density is a per day estimate of harbor seals in a 1 km2 area within the fall/winter or spring/summer seasons.

Harbor seal density for the proposed project was calculated from all observations during SFOBB Project monitoring from 2000 to 2014. These observations included data from baseline, pre, during and post pile driving and onshore implosion activities. During this time, the population of harbor seals within the Bay has remained stable (Manugian 2013), therefore, we do not anticipate significant differences in numbers or behaviors of seals hauling out, foraging or in their movements over that 15 year period. All harbor seal observations within a km2 area were used in the estimate. Distances were recorded using a laser range finder (Bushnell Yardage Pro Elite 1500; ±1.0 yards accuracy). Care was taken to eliminate multiple observations of the same animal although this was difficult when more than three seals were foraging in the same area.

Density of harbor seals was highest near YBI and Treasure Island, probably due to the haul-out site and nearby foraging areas in the Coast Guard and Clipper coves. Therefore, density estimates were calculated for a higher density area within 3,936 ft (1,200 m) west of Pier E3, which includes these two foraging coves. A lower density estimate was calculated from the area east of Pier E3 and beyond 3,936 ft (1,200 m) to the north and south of Pier E3.

These density estimates were then extrapolated to the threshold criteria areas delineated by the hydroacoustic models to calculate the number of harbor seals likely to be exposed.

Most data on California sea lion populations are collected while the seals are hauled out as it is much easier to count individuals when they are out of the water. In-water density estimates rely on haul-out counts, the percentage of sea lions not on shore based on radio telemetry studies, and the size of the foraging range of the population. Sea lion density, like harbor seal densities, in the water can vary greatly depending on weather conditions, the availability of prey, and the season. For example, sea lion density increases during the summer and fall after the end of the breeding season at the Southern California rookeries.

For the proposed project, California sea lion density was calculated from all observations during SFOBB monitoring from 2000 to 2014. These observations included data from baseline, pre, during and post pile driving and onshore implosion activities. During this time, the population of sea lions within the Bay has remained stable as have the numbers observed near the SFOBB (Manugian 2013). As a result, we do not anticipate significant differences in the number of sea lion or their movements over that 15 year period. All sea lion observations within a km2 area were used in the estimate. Distances were recorded using a laser range finder (Bushnell Yardage Pro Elite 1500; ±1.0 yards accuracy). Care was taken to eliminate multiple observations of the same animal, although most sea lion observations involve a single animal. Calculated California sea lion density is a per day estimate of sea lions in a one km2 area within the fall/winter or spring/summer seasons.

Northern elephant seal density around Pier E3 was calculated from the stranding records of the MMC from 2004 to 2014. These data included both injured or sick seals and healthy seals. Approximately 100 elephant seals were reported within the Bay during this time, most of these hauled out and were likely sick or starving. The actual number of individuals within the Bay may be higher as not all individuals would necessarily have hauled out. Some individuals may have simply left the Bay soon after entering. Data from the MMC show several elephant seals stranding on Treasure Island and one healthy elephant seal was observed resting on the beach in Clipper Cove in 2012. Elephant seal pups or juveniles also may strand after weaning in the spring and when they return to California in the fall (September through November).

Harbor porpoise density was calculated from all observations during SFOBB monitoring from 2000 to 2014. These observations included data from baseline, pre, during and post pile driving and onshore implosion activities. Over this period, the number of harbor porpoises that were observed entering and using the Bay increased. During the fifteen years of observational data around the SFOBB Project, only four harbor porpoises were observed and all occurred from 2006 to 2014 (including two in 2014). All harbor porpoise observations within a km2 area were used in the estimate. Distances were recorded using a laser range finder (Bushnell Yardage Pro Elite 1500; ±1.0 yards accuracy).

A summary of marine mammal density information is provided in Table 5.

Since the proposed Pier E3 controlled implosion would be carried as a confined explosion, certain elements were taken into the modeling process beyond a simple open-water blast model. Confinement is a concept in blasting that predicts the amount of blast energy that is expected to be absorbed by the surrounding structural material, resulting in the fracturing necessary for demolition. The energy beyond that absorbed by the material is the energy that produces the pressure wave propagating away from the source. NMFS has determined that modeling with confinement was appropriate for the proposed Pier E3 blast by evaluating blast results from case study data for underwater implosions similar to the SFOBB Pier E3 implosion. In addition, the NMFS worked with CALTRANS and compared case study results to published blast models that incorporate a degree of confinement.

Data from 39 comparable underwater concrete blasts were used by CALTRANS to evaluate potential equations for modeling blast-induced peak pressures and subsequent effects to marine mammals (Kiewit-Mason, pers. Comm 2015 in CALTRANS 2015). All 39 blasts occurred in approximately 55 ft (16.8 m) of water, similar to the maximum water depth around Pier E3. In addition, all blasts had burdens (i.e., distance from the charge to the outside side of the material being fractured) of approximately 1.5 to 2 ft (0.5 to 0.6 m). Burdens for Pier E3 also are estimated to be in this range. Data provided included the charge weight, observed peak pressure, distance of peak pressure observation, and the modeled peak pressure using Cole's confined equation, Cole's unconfined equation, and Oriard's conservative concrete equation (Cole 1948; Oriard 2002).

Using these data, appropriate equations for modeling the associated hydroacoustic impacts are established for the Pier E3 controlled implosion. Cole's unconfined equation greatly overestimated peak pressures for all blasts while Cole's confined equation appeared to most accurately predict observed peak pressures. Oriard's conservative concrete equation overestimated peak pressures, but not as dramatically as under Cole's unconfined equation. NMFS and CALTRANS have opted to use more conservative methods to ensure an additional level of safety when predicting the monitoring zone and potential impact areas to marine mammals from the proposed controlled implosion project.

The applicable metrics discussed are the peak pressure (Ppk) expressed in dB, the accumulated sound exposure level (SEL) also expressed in dB, and the positive acoustic impulse (I) in Pa-sec. The criteria for marine mammals are grouped into behavioral response, slight injury, mortality, and the specific acoustic thresholds depend on group and species. These are summarized in Table 2. The metrics for these are criteria defined as:

The blast event will consist of a total of 588 individual delays of varying charge weight; the largest is 35 pounds/delay and the smallest is 21 pounds/delay. The blasting sequence is rather complex. On the full height walls, 30 pound weights will be used for the portion below mud line, 35 pound weights will be used in the lower structure immediately above mud line, 29.6 pounds in the midstructure, and 21 pounds in the upper structure. Full details on the delay weights and locations can be found in the Blast Plan (CALTRANS 2015). Blasts will start in several interior webs of the southern portion of the structure followed by the outer walls of the south side. The blasts in the inner walls will occur just prior to the adjacent outer walls. The interior first, exterior second blast sequence will continue across the structure moving from south to north. The time for the 588 detonations is 5.3 seconds with a minimum delay time of 9 milliseconds (ms) between detonations. As the blasting progresses, locations to east, north, and west of the pier will be shielded from the blasting on the interior of the structure from the still-standing exterior walls of the pier. However, towards the conclusion of the blast, each direction will experience blasts from the outer walls that are not shielded.

To estimate P pk and P 2(t), several assumptions were made. For simplification, it was assumed that there is only one blast distance and it is to the closest point on the pier from the receiver point. In actuality for almost all explosions, distances from the blast will be greater as the pier is approximately 135 ft (41 m) across and 80 ft (24 m) wide. Based on these dimensions, the actual blast point could be up to 135 ft (41 m) further from the receptor point used for the calculation. As a result, the calculated peak level is the maximum expected for one 35 pound blast while the other levels would be lower depending on the distance from the actual blast location to the calculation point and weight of the charge. In other words, the pressure received at the calculation point would not be 588 signals of the same amplitude, but would be from one at the estimated level for a 35 pound charge and 587 of varying lower amplitudes. Similarly, in the vertical direction, the location varies over a height of about 50 ft (15 m) and those blasts that are not at the same depth as the receiver would also be lower. This effect of variation in assumed blast to receiver distance will be most pronounced close to the pier, while at distances of about 1,000 ft (305 m) or greater, the effect would be less than 1 dB.

In the calculations, it was also assumed that there would be no self-shielding of the pier as the explosions progress. From the above discussion of the blast sequence, some shielding of the blasts along the interior of the pier will occur. However, the blasts that occur in outer wall (towards the end of the implosion) will not be shielded for all blasts. A blast in the outer wall that has a direct line of sight to the receptor calculation point will not be shielded and will generate the highest peak pressure relative to be compared to the L pk criterion. The cumulative SEL and the root-mean-squared (RMS) levels; however, will be reduced to some degree by the outer walls until they are demolished as these metrics are defined by the pressure received throughout the entire 5.3 second event. However, due to the complexity of the blast sequence, this shielding effect was not considered in the calculated SEL and RMS levels.

Based on the Blast Plan (CALTRANS 2015), the delays are to be placed in 23/4 to 3 inch (7 to 7.6 cm) diameter holes drilled into the concrete pier structure. The outer walls of the pier are nominally 3 ft-111/2 inch (1.5 m) thick and inner walls are nominally 3 ft (0.9 m) thick. Individual blasts should be not exposed to open water and some confinement of the blasts is expected. For confined blasts, the predicted pressures can be reduced by 65 to 95% (Nedwell and Thandavamoorthy 1992; Rickman 2000; Oriard 2002; Rivey 2011), corresponding to multiplication factors from 0.35 to 0.05, respectively. Based on a review of the available literature and recent data from similar explosive projects, CALTRANS and NMFS decided to use a conservative confinement factor of K=7500 which equates to a 65% reduction in pressure and by a multiplication factor of 0.3472 (Eq. 4).

Another assumption was to consider only the direct wave from an individual blast. In shallow water, the signal at the receiver point could consist of the direct wave, surface-relief wave generated by the water/air interface, a reflected wave from the bottom, and a wave transmitted through the bottom material (USACE 1991). For estimating Ppk, only the direct wave is considered as it will have the highest magnitude and will arrive at the receiver location before any other wave component. However, P(t) after the arrival of the direct wave peak pressure will be effected. The surface-relief wave is negative so that when it arrives at the receiver location, it will reduce the positive pressure of the direct wave and can make the total pressure negative at times after the arrival of the initial positive peak pressure. Since the SEL is a pressure squared quantity, any negative pressure can also contribute to the SEL. However, the amplitude and arrival time of the surface-relief wave depends on the geometry of the propagation case, that is, depth of water, depth of blast, and distance and depth of the receiver point. The effect of this assumption is discussed further in the section on SEL.

Peak pressures were estimated by following the modified version of the Cole Equation for prediction of blasts in open, deep water (Cole 1948). The peak pressure is determined by:

Estimating the weighted SEL values for the different groups/species is a multiple step process. The first step is to estimate SEL values as a function of distance from the blast pressure versus time histories for each of the six charge weights as a function of distance. The open-water equation used for this calculation was that modified by the USACE (1991) based on methods pioneered by Cole (1948). Pressure as a function of time is given by:

These calculations were then extended to distances out to 160,000 ft (48.8 km).

As discussed previously, there are other wave components that could be considered in the SEL estimation, including the surface relief wave, reflection from the bottom, and transmission through and re-radiation from the bottom. Little or no contribution is expected from the bottom based on its sedimentary nature and previous experiences from measuring noise from underwater pile driving in the area around Pier E3. The negative surface relief wave could be a factor in the SEL estimation. This wave could either increase or decrease the SEL depending on its arrival time relative to the direct wave. For small differences in arrival time, the surface relief will decrease the total SEL as a portion of the positive direct wave is negated by the addition of the negative surface relief wave. For closer distances and when the receptor and blast locations are near the bottom, the total SEL can become greater than the direct wave SEL, but only by less than 3 dB. However, whenever the source or receiver is near the surface, the direct wave SEL will be greater than the total SEL and can approach being 10 dB greater for distances beyond 1,000 ft (305 m). As a result, the surface relief wave is ignored in this analysis knowing that the surface relief wave would only tend to produce lower SEL values than the direct wave.

For each of the marine mammal groupings included in Table 2, specific filter shapes apply to each functional hearing group. To apply this weighting, the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) was calculated for the time histories at each analysis distance. Each FFT was then filtered using the frequency weighted specified for each group. Filter factors were then determined for each distance by subtracting the filtered result from the unfiltered FFT data and determining the overall noise reduction in decibels. These filter factors were applied to the accumulated SEL determined for the entire blast event for each distance from the Pier.

The BAS of the Blast Plan will have an effect on the wave once a blast passes through it. In a research report by USACE in 1964, the performance of a BAS was examined in detail (USACE 1964). It has also been found that for an energy metric such as SEL, the reduction produced by the BAS was equal to or greater than the reduction of the peak pressure (USACE 1991; Rude 2002; Rude and Lee 2007; Rivey 2011). To estimate the reduction for SEL values due to the BAS installed in the Blast Plan (CALTRANS 2015), SEL was reduced by 80%. Effectively, this was done by reducing the SEL by 20 Log (0.20), or 14 dB. Delays below the mudline, which will be located below the BAS, were also reduced by 80% based on an assumption that the outside pier walls here (which will not be removed) and Bay mud sediments will provide a similar level of attenuation. These SEL values and those without the BAS were then compared to the appropriate criteria for each marine mammal group. Because the calculation of SEL is based on the peak pressure, these estimates for the direct wave component are expected to be conservative for the same reasons as described for the peak pressures.

To estimate positive impulse values, the expression originally developed by Cole for open water was used (Cole 1948). This expression includes only contributions from the direct wave neglecting any contribution from the surface relief, bottom reflected, and bottom transmitted consistent with the assumptions used to estimate SEL. In this case, impulse is given by:

Unlike Ppk and SEL, no reduction by the BAS is assumed for the impulse calculation. The area under the P(t) curve under goes little change after passing the BAS. The peak pressure is reduced as noted previously, however, since the P(t) expands in duration, the area change is minimal. This behavior is well documented in the literature (Cole 1948; USACE 1964; USACE 1991; Rickman 2000). As discussed above, this is not the case for SEL which is determined by the area under the P 2(t) curve.

The estimated distances (Table 3) to the marine mammal criteria for peak pressure, SEL, and impulse are based on established relationships between charge weight and distance from the literature. The estimated distances were determined assuming unconfined open water blasts from the original Cole equations or the Cole equations modified by USACE. The assumption of open water neglects several effects that could produce lower levels than estimated. These include no shielding by the pier structure prior a specific blast, confining of the individual delays in the holes drilled into the pier structure, and longer distances to individual blasts than assumed by closest distance between the pier and the receptor point. For SEL, the assumption of open water blasts neglects the surface relief wave which at longer distances from the pier, would tend to reduce the SEL due to interference with the direct wave. Although the estimated levels and distances may be conservative, there is sufficient uncertainty in the blast event and its propagation such that further, less conservative adjustments would not be appropriate.

Estimated exposure numbers are subsequently calculated based on modeled ensonified areas and marine mammal density information. However, since many marine mammals are expected to occur in groups, the estimated exposure numbers are adjusted upward by a factor of 2 to provide estimated take numbers. In addition, although modeling shows that no California sea lion would be exposure to noise levels that would result in a take, its presence in the vicinity of SFOBB has been documented. Therefore, take of 2 of California sea lion is assessed. A summary of estimated takes and exposures of marine mammals that could result from CALTRANS' Pier E3 controlled implosion is provided in Table 6.

Negligible impact is “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” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 5, given that the anticipated effects of CALTRANS' Pier E3 controlled implosion on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity.

No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of CALTRANS' controlled implosion to demolish Pier E3, and none are authorized. The relatively low marine mammal density and small Level A exclusion zones make injury takes of marine mammals unlikely, based on take calculation described above. In addition, the Level A exclusion zones would be thoroughly monitored before the proposed implosion, and detonation activity would be postponed if an marine mammal is sighted within the exclusion.

The takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral and TTS). Marine mammals (Pacific harbor seal, northern elephant seal, California sea lion, and harbor porpoise) present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle reaction) and avoidance of the area from the implosion noise. A few Pacific harbor seals could experience TTS if they occur within the Level B TTS ZOI. However, TTS is a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity when exposed to loud sound, and the hearing threshold is expected to recover completely within minutes to hours. In addition, even if an animal receives a TTS, the TTS would just be a one-time event from a brief impulse noise (about 5 seconds), making it unlikely that the TTS would evolve into PTS. Finally, there is no critical habitat and other biologically important areas in the vicinity of CALTRANS' proposed Pier E3 controlled implosion area (John Calambokidis et al. 2015).

The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section. The project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may kill some fish and cause other fish to leave the area temporarily, thus impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the prescribed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from CALTRANS's Pier E3 demolition via controlled implosion will not adversely affect annual rates of recruitment or survival; accordingly we conclude the taking will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

The requested takes represent less than 0.06% of all populations or stocks potentially impacted (see Table 6 in this document). These take estimates represent the percentage of each species or stock that could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment and TTS (Level B harassment). The numbers of marine mammals estimated to be taken are small proportions of the total populations of the affected species or stocks. In addition, the mitigation and monitoring measures (described previously in this document) prescribed in the IHA are expected to reduce even further any potential disturbance to marine mammals.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

There are no subsistence uses of marine mammals in the project area; and, thus, no subsistence uses impacted by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

NMFS has determined that issuance of the IHA will have no effect on listed marine mammals, as none are known to occur in the action area.

NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the take of marine mammals incidental to construction of the East Span of the SF-OBB and made Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs) on November 4, 2003 and August 5, 2009. Due to the modification of part of the demolition of the original SFOBB using controlled implosion and the associated mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS prepared an SEA and analyzed the potential impacts to marine mammals that would result from the modification. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed in September 2015. A copy of the EA and FONSI is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

NMFS has issued an IHA to CALTRANS for the potential harassment of small numbers of four marine mammal species incidental to the SFOBB Pier E3 demolition via controlled implosion in San Francisco Bay, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Agenda Tuesday, October 13, 2015

The Committee will review information provided by the Council's Scallop PDT and recommend the overfishing levels (OFLs) and acceptable biological catches (ABC) for Atlantic sea scallops for fishing years 2016 and 2017.

The Committee will also review recent stock assessment information from the 2015 Groundfish Operational Assessments updates and information provided by the Council's Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) and recommend the overfishing levels (OFLs) and acceptable biological catches (ABCs) for all groundfish stocks (except for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder) managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan for fishing years 2016-18.

The Committee will continue to review information on and develop recommendations for OFLs and ABC for Northeast multispecies groundfish for fishing years 2016-18 and address other business as necessary.

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

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Committee examines the effectiveness with which the NPS and the NWC are accomplishing its missions. The agenda is as follows:

1. October 14, 2015: General deliberations and inquiry by the NWC BOA Subcommittee and its parent committee NPS/NWC BOA into its programs and mission priorities; re-accreditation review; administration; military construction; leader development continuum; defense planning guidance efforts; and any other matters relating to the operations of the NWC as the board considers pertinent.

2. October 15, 2015: The purpose of the meeting is to elicit the advice of the NPS BOA subcommittee on the Naval Service's Postgraduate Education Program. With its parent committee NPS/NWC BOA, the board will inquire into programs and curricula; instruction; administration; state of morale of the student body, faculty, and staff; fiscal affairs. The committee will review any other matters relating to the operations of the NPS as the board considers pertinent. Individuals without a DoD Government Common Access Card require an escort at the meeting location. For access, information, or to send written statements for consideration at the committee meeting must contact Ms. Jaye Panza, Naval Postgraduate School, 1 University Circle, Monterey, CA 93943-5001 or by fax 831-656-3145 by October 7, 2015.

The Commission was established to provide advice to the Secretary on the Department's national laboratories. The Commission will review the DOE national laboratories for alignment with the Department's strategic priorities, clear and balanced missions, unique capabilities to meet current energy and national security challenges, appropriate size to meet the Department's energy and national security missions, and support of other Federal agencies. The Commission will also look for opportunities to more effectively and efficiently use the capabilities of the national laboratories and review the use of laboratory directed research and development (LDRD) to meet the Department's science, energy, and national security goals. The Commission will report its findings and conclusions to the Secretary of Energy and the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The draft Final Report of the Lab Commission has been posted to the Commission's Web site (http://energy.gov/labcommission). A public comment period is now open through September 25, 2015. Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer written comments and suggestions may do so by emailing [email protected] no later than September 25, 2015.

Purpose of the Meeting: This meeting is the final public meeting of the Commission.

Tentative Agenda: The meeting will start at 1:00 p.m. on October 23, 2015. The tentative meeting agenda includes discussion on the draft Final Report of the Commission. The Commissioners will address comments they have received on the report and hear any additional comments from members of the public on the Conference Call. The meeting will conclude at 2:00 p.m. Agenda updates or changes will be posted on the Lab Commission's Web site: http://energy.gov/labcommission.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Individuals who would like to participate in the teleconference must RSVP to Karen Gibson no later than 12:00 noon on Thursday, October 22, 2015 at [email protected] Please provide your name, organization, contact information, and indicate if you wish to offer comments on the report during the teleconference. You will be provided with the call-in number and passcode.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments may do so in writing by emailing: [email protected] no later than September 25th, or may do so verbally during the October 23rd Conference Call. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak but will not exceed 5 minutes. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available on the Commission's Web site at: http://energy.gov/labcommission.

To provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation on scientific priorities within the field of basic nuclear science research.

Agenda will include discussions of the following:

• Perspectives from Department of Energy and National Science Foundation

• Updates from the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation's Nuclear Physics Office

• Presentation of the 2015 NSAC Long Range Plan Report

• NSAC Discussion of the 2015 Long Range Plan Report

• Presentation of the Charge for the DOE Office of Nuclear Physics Committee of Visitors

• Presentation of the NSAC Subcommittee Report on Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay Report

• Continued NSAC discussion of the Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay Report

• Discussion of Transmittal Letters for the Long Range Plan and Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay Reports

• Public Comment

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Brenda L. May, at (301) 903-0536 or by email [email protected]. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for review on the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Physics Web site at http://science.gov/np/nsac/meetings/.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Purpose of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee (EM&R): The EM&R Committee provides a citizens' perspective to NNMCAB on current and future environmental remediation activities resulting from historical Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) operations and, in particular, issues pertaining to groundwater, surface water and work required under the New Mexico Environment Department Order on Consent. The EM&R Committee will keep abreast of DOE-EM and site programs and plans. The committee will work with the NNMCAB to provide assistance in determining priorities and the best use of limited funds and time. Formal recommendations will be proposed when needed and, after consideration and approval by the full NNMCAB, may be sent to DOE-EM for action.

Purpose of the Waste Management (WM) Committee: The WM Committee reviews policies, practices and procedures, existing and proposed, so as to provide recommendations, advice, suggestions and opinions to the NNMCAB regarding waste management operations at the Los Alamos site.

Tentative Agenda:

Public Participation: The NNMCAB's Committees welcome the attendance of the public at their combined committee meeting and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http://www.nnmcab.energy.gov/.

On July 27, 2015, EPA announced the availability of the draft recommended aquatic life water quality criterion for selenium in a previous notice entitled “Request for Scientific Views: Draft Recommended Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Chronic Criterion for Selenium—Freshwater 2015” in the Federal Register (80 FR 44350). EPA's recommended aquatic life water quality criteria provide technical information for states and authorized tribes to adopt water quality standards under the Clean Water Act to protect aquatic life.

EPA is extending the public comment period for the Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criterion for Selenium—Freshwater 2015 (EPA-822-P-15-001). The original comment deadline was September 25, 2015. This action extends the comment period for 15 days. Written scientific views must now be received by October 10, 2015.

Following closure of the public comment period, EPA will consider the public comments and revise the document as necessary. EPA will then publish a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the final updated selenium criterion.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-182) authorized the creation of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF; the Fund) program in each state and Puerto Rico to assist public water systems to finance the costs of infrastructure needed to achieve or maintain compliance with SDWA requirements and to protect public health. SDWA section 1452 authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to award capitalization grants to the states and Puerto Rico which, in turn, provide low-cost loans and other types of assistance to eligible drinking water systems. States can also reserve a portion of their grants to conduct various set-aside activities. The information collection activities will occur primarily at the program level through the (1) Capitalization Grant Application and Agreement/State Intended Use Plan; (2) Biennial Report; (3) Annual Audit; (4) Assistance Application Review; and (5) DWSRF National Information Management System and the Projects and Benefits Reporting System.

(1) Capitalization Grant Application and Agreement/State Intended Use Plan: The state must prepare a Capitalization Grant Application that includes an Intended Use Plan (IUP) outlining in detail how it will use all the funds covered by the capitalization grant. The state may, as an alternative, develop the IUP in a two part process, with one part identifying the distribution and uses of the funds among the various set-asides in the DWSRF program and the other part dealing with project assistance from the Fund.

(2) Biennial Report: The state must agree to complete and submit a Biennial Report on the uses of the capitalization grant. The scope of the report must cover assistance provided by the Fund and all other set-aside activities included under the Capital Grant Agreement. States which jointly administer the DWSRF and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) programs, in accordance with section 1452(g)(1), may submit reports (according to the schedule specified for each program) which cover both programs.

(3) Annual Audit: A state must comply with the provisions of the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996. Best management practices suggest and EPA recommends that a state conduct an annual independent audit of its DWSRF program. The scope of the report must cover the DWSRF Fund and all other set-aside activities included in the Capitalization Grant Agreement. States which jointly administer the DWSRF and the CWSRF programs, in accordance with SDWA section 1452(g)(1), may submit audits that cover both programs but which report financial information for each program separately.

(4) Assistance Application Review: Local applicants seeking financial assistance must prepare and submit DWSRF loan applications. States then review completed loan applications and verify that proposed projects will comply with applicable federal and state requirements.

(5) DWSRF National Information Management System (DWNIMS) and the Projects and Benefits Reporting System (PBR): To ensure that funds are being used in an expeditious and timely manner for eligible projects and expenses, states must annually enter state-level financial data into DWNIMS and quarterly enter project-level data into PBR.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities affected by this action are states and local governments.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit per the Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1452(g)(1).

Estimated number of respondents: 2,015 (total).

Frequency of response: Varies by requirement (i.e., quarterly, semi-annually and annually).

Total estimated burden: 269,800 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $10,639,925 (per year).

Changes in Estimates: The EPA expects a decrease in the total estimated respondent burden hours compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. The currently approved ICR includes increased burden from additional Congressional program appropriations from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which nearly doubled burden in some years. Inflation will offset some of the decrease achieved by removing ARRA burden from this ICR.

Meeting access: Access to these Internet meetings are open to all by following the information provided above.

Procedures for providing public input: Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral comments for the HSRB to consider during the advisory process. Additional information concerning submission of relevant written or oral comments is provided in Section I, “Public Meeting” under subsection D. “How May I Participate in this Meeting?” of this notice.

This action is directed to the public in general. This Notice may, however, be of particular interest to persons who conduct or assess human studies, especially studies on substances regulated by the EPA, or to persons who are, or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. This notice might also be of special interest to participants of studies involving human subjects, or representatives of study participants or experts on community engagement. The Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may have interest in human subjects research. If you have any questions regarding this notice, consult Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA Docket Center, in the Public Reading Room. The Public Reading Room is located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA WJC West, at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. The hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Please call (202) 566-1744 or email the ORD Docket at [email protected] for instructions. Updates to Public Reading Room access are available on the Web site (http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm). The Agency's position paper(s), charge/questions to the HSRB, and the meeting agenda will be available by early October 2015. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and other related documents that are available electronically, from the regulations.gov Web site and the EPA HSRB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/hsrb/. For questions on document availability, or if you do not have access to the Internet, consult Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data that you used to support your views.

4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

5. To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the Docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

You may participate in these meetings by following the instructions in this section. To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, it is imperative that you identify Docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0588 in the subject line on the first page of your request.

1. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments during either conference call will be accepted up to Noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 14, 2015, for the October 19-20 meeting and up to Noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, for the December 7, 2015 conference call. To the extent that time permits, interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments during either call. Individuals or groups wishing to make brief oral comments to the HSRB on October 19 or 20, 2015, are strongly advised to submit their request (preferably via email) to Jim Downing, listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon, Eastern Time, Wednesday, October 14, 2015, in order to be included on the meeting agenda and to provide sufficient time for the HSRB Chair and HSRB Designated Federal Official to review the meeting agenda to provide an appropriate public comment period. Individuals or groups wishing to make brief oral comments to the HSRB during the December 7, 2015 teleconference should submit their request by Noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 2, 2015. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation and the organization (if any) the individual will represent. Oral comments before the HSRB are generally limited to five minutes per individual or organization. Please note that this includes all individuals appearing either as part of, or on behalf of, an organization. While it is our intent to hear a full range of oral comments on the science and ethics issues under discussion, it is not our intent to permit organizations to expand the time limitations by having numerous individuals sign up separately to speak on their behalf. If additional time is available, further public comments may be possible.

2. Written comments. Submit your written comments prior to the meetings. For the Board to have the best opportunity to review and consider your comments as it deliberates, you should submit your comments by Noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 14, 2015, for the October 19-20 meeting, and by noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, for the December 7, 2015 teleconference. If you submit comments after these dates, those comments will be provided to the HSRB members, but you should recognize that the HSRB members may not have adequate time to consider your comments prior to their discussion. You should submit your comments using the instructions in Section I., under subsection C., “What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for the EPA?” In addition, the agency also requests that persons submitting comments directly to the docket also provide a copy of their comments to Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no limit on the length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB.

The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 5 U.S.C. App.2 § 9. The HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations to the EPA on issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of human subjects research. The major objectives of the HSRB are to provide advice and recommendations on: (1) Research proposals and protocols; (2) reports of completed research with human subjects; and (3) how to strengthen EPA's programs for protection of human subjects of research. The HSRB reports to the EPA Administrator through the Agency's Science Advisor.

1. Topics for discussion. On Monday, October 19, 2015, EPA's Human Studies Review Board will consider scientific and ethical issues surrounding: A completed study from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Describing Laboratory Evaluation of Bite Protection from Repellent-Impregnated Clothing for the United States Military. At the continuation of the October meeting on Tuesday, October 20, 2015, EPA's Human Studies Review Board will consider scientific and ethical issues surrounding: Protocol for Testing of S.C. Johnson Personal Tick Repellent Products to Support Use of EPA Repellency Awareness Graphic.

2. Then on Monday, December 7, 2015 the HSRB will finalize its Final Report for the October 19-20, 2015 meeting.

2. Meeting minutes and reports. Minutes of these meetings, summarizing the matters discussed and recommendations, if any, made by the advisory committee regarding such matters, will be released within 90 calendar days of the meeting. Such minutes will be available at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ and http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, information regarding the HSRB's final meeting report, will be found at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ or from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The Charter of the BOSC states that the advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the Administrator on technical and management aspects of the Office of Research and Development's research program. Additional information about the BOSC is available at: http://www2.epa.gov/bosc.

Oral Statements: Members of the public who wish to provide oral comment during the Thursday, October 1, 2015, public teleconference meeting must pre-register by noon, Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/us-epa-bosc-homeland-security-subcommittee-conference-call-registration-18471366354. Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to five (5) minutes. To accommodate the number of people who want to address the BOSC Homeland Security Subcommittee, only one representative of a particular community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak.

Written Statements: Written comments for the public meeting must be received by noon, Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 29, 2015, and will be included in the materials distributed to the BOSC Homeland Security Subcommittee prior to the teleconference. Written comments should be sent to Tom Tracy, Environmental Protection Agency, via email at [email protected] or by mail to 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC 8104 R), Washington, DC 20460 or submitted through regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0528.

Information about Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information about access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tom Tracy, at 202-564-6518 or via email at [email protected] To request special accommodations for a disability, please contact Tom Tracy no later than September 28, 2015 to give EPA sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the address, email, or phone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

On June 8, 2015, West Virginia notified EPA that West Virginia had updated its incorporation by reference of federal NESHAP and NSPS to include many such standards, as found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 60, 61, and 63, as of June 1, 2014. On June 24, 2015, EPA sent West Virginia a letter acknowledging that West Virginia now has the authority to implement and enforce the NESHAP and NSPS as specified by West Virginia in its notice to EPA, as provided for under previously approved automatic delegation mechanisms. All notifications, applications, reports and other correspondence required pursuant to the delegated NESHAP and NSPS must be submitted to both the US EPA Region III and to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, unless the delegated standard specifically provides that such submittals may be sent to EPA or a delegated State. In such cases, the submittals should be sent only to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. A copy of EPA's June 24, 2015 letter to West Virginia follows:

This notice acknowledges the update of West Virginia's delegation of authority to implement and enforce NESHAP and NSPS.