Federal Register Vol. 80, No.74,

On November 26, 2014, the Department published the preliminary determination of the LTFV investigation of domestic dry containers from the PRC in the Federal Register.1 The following events occurred since then. On December 9, 2014, we received scope comments from interested parties Crowley Maritime Corporation and Crowley Liner Services, Inc., and Sea Star Lines LLC (collectively, “Crowley”). On December 1, 2014, respondent Singamas 2 submitted timely ministerial error allegations with respect to the Department's calculation the weighted-average dumping margin for Singamas.3 Also on December 1, 2014, Petitioner 4 submitted ministerial error allegations 5 with respect to respondent CIMC.6 We received no rebuttal comments regarding these allegations. On December 31, 2014, we published the amended preliminary determination in the Federal Register.7 Between January 12, 2015, and January 23, 2015, the Department conducted verification of the mandatory respondents CIMC and Singamas. The Department issued the sales and factors-of-production verification reports for both CIMC and Singamas on February 26, 2015.8 On March 10, 2015, Petitioner, Crowley, CIMC, and Singamas filed case briefs (which included scope comments). On March 16, 2015, Petitioner, Crowley, CIMC, and Singamas filed rebuttal briefs (which included scope comments). The Department did not hold a hearing as all requests for a hearing were withdrawn.

The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014.

The Department received comments regarding the scope of this investigation from interested parties. As detailed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum,9 we have not made any changes to the scope.10

The merchandise subject to investigation is closed (i.e., not open top) van containers exceeding 14.63 meters (48 feet) but generally measuring 16.154 meters (53 feet) in exterior length, which are designed for the intermodal transport 11 of goods other than bulk liquids within North America primarily by rail or by road vehicle, or by a combination of rail and road vehicle (domestic containers). Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under subheading 8609.00.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Imports of the subject merchandise which meet the definition of and requirements for “instruments of international traffic” pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1322 and 19 CFR 10.41a may be classified under subheading 9803.00.50, HTSUS. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix II to this notice.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which the parties raised and to which the Department responded in the memorandum appears in Appendix I of this notice. The Issues and 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://iaaccess.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 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/. The signed and electronic versions of the memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to CIMC's and Singamas's margin calculations since the Amended Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum and the Final Analysis Memoranda, all dated concurrently with this notice.12

As noted above, on April 1, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination that boltless steel shelving from the PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”).2 On March 30, 2015, Hoifat filed timely allegations of ministerial errors contained in the Department's Preliminary Determination.3

The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2014.4

The scope of this investigation covers boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale, with or without decks (“boltless steel shelving”). The term “prepackaged for sale” means that, at a minimum, the steel vertical supports (i.e., uprights and posts) and steel horizontal supports (i.e., beams, braces) necessary to assemble a completed shelving unit (with or without decks) are packaged together for ultimate purchase by the end-user. Subject boltless steel shelving enters the United States through Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) statistical subheadings 9403.20.0018 and 9403.20.0020, but may also enter through HTSUS 9403.10.0040. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.5

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (g)(1), the Department is amending the Preliminary Determination to reflect the correction of a significant ministerial error it made in the margin assigned to Hoifat, a separate rate applicant. A ministerial error is defined as errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.6 A significant ministerial error is defined as a ministerial error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would result in (1) a change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary determination, or (2) a difference between a weighted-average dumping margin of zero or de minimis and a weighted-average dumping margin of greater than de minimis or vice versa.7 As a result of this amended preliminary determination, we have added Hoifat to the list of exporters that received a separate rate.8

On March 30, 2015, Hoifat, a separate rate applicant,9 submitted a ministerial error allegation claiming that although Hoifat filed a quantity and value response and a separate rate application in this investigation, its separate rate status was not analyzed and it was not named in the Preliminary Determination as one of the exporters receiving a separate rate.10 The Department reviewed the record and agrees that this constitutes a significant ministerial error within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(g). In its SRA, Hoifat submitted information supporting a preliminary finding of an absence of de jure and de facto government control.11 Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that Hoifat is eligible for a separate rate, because the failure to conduct a separate rate analysis was an unintentional error. Further, this error was significant because Hoifat's margin increased from the separate rate of 52.23 to the PRC-wide rate of 112.68 as a result of this error, thus exceeding the significant error threshold because a correction of this error results in a change of at least five absolute percentage points.

The collection of cash deposits and suspension of liquidation will be revised accordingly in accordance with section 733(d) and (f) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224. Because the amended rate for Hoifat results in a reduced cash deposit rate, the rate for Hoifat will be effective retroactively to April 1, 2015, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination.

As a result of this amended preliminary determination, we have revised the preliminary estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Hoifat as follows:

In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it would make its final determination for this antidumping duty investigation no later than 75 days after the preliminary determination.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by petitioner. In addition, section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four month period to not more than six months.

On April 7, 2015, Zhongda United Holding Group Co., Ltd., one of the two mandatory respondents in this investigation, requested a 60-day extension of the final determination and extension of the provisional measures. Thus, because our amended preliminary determination is affirmative, and the respondent requesting a postponement of the final determination and an extension of the provisional measures accounts for a significant proportion of exports of boltless steel shelving, and no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the deadline for the final determination by 60 days until August 14, 2015, based on the publication date of the

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the International Trade Commission of our amended preliminary determination.

This amended preliminary determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

On March 9, 2015, the Department disclosed to interested parties its calculations for the Final Results. 2 On March 16, 2015 we received a ministerial error allegation from Jiangsu RC Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu RC).3

The merchandise subject to the order are HSLWs. The product is currently classified under subheading 7318.21.0000, 7318.21.0030, and 7318.21.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4

Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” We have analyzed Jiangsu RC's ministerial error comments and have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made ministerial errors in our calculations for the Final Results. For the Final Results, the Department identified and valued five labor inputs to use in calculating the surrogate value for Jiangsu RC.5 In calculating the surrogate value, the Department inadvertently double-counted two of these five labor inputs.6

In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results. The revised weighted-average dumping margins are detailed below.

As a result of correcting this ministerial error, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR: 7

We will disclose the calculations performed for these amended final results to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For customers or importers of Jiangsu RC for which we do not have entered value, we calculated customer-/importer-specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping duties calculated for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the total sales quantity of those same sales. For customers or importers of Jiangsu RC for which we received entered-value information, we have calculated customer/importer-specific antidumping duty assessment rates based on customer/importer-specific ad valorem rates in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, including, in this case, Suzhou Guoxin Group Wang Shun Imp. and Exp. Co., Ltd. (Guoxin) and Winnsen Industry Co., Ltd. (Winnsen), the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the revised PRC-wide rate of 189.81 percent.8 In addition, for companies for which the Department determined that the exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction 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.

These amended final results of review are issued and published in accordance with section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930 Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).

On September 29, 2014, the Department published the preliminary determination of the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of domestic dry containers from the PRC in the Federal Register.1 On September 30, 2014, China International Marine Containers (Group) Co., Ltd., Guangdong Xinhui CIMC Special Transportation Equipment Co., Ltd., Nantong CIMC-Special Transportation Equipment Manufacture Co., Ltd., Qingdao CIMC Container Manufacture Co., Ltd., Xinhui CIMC Wood Co., Ltd., and Xinhui CIMC Container Co., Ltd. (collectively “CIMC”) submitted ministerial error comments regarding the Preliminary Determination. On October 9, 2014, the Department responded to these comments, stating that the issues raised by CIMC were methodological in nature and did not constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of the Department's regulations.2

On November 6, 2014, the Department issued a post-preliminary analysis with respect to CIMC, as well as Hui Zhou Pacific Container Co., Ltd., Qingdao Pacific Container Co., Ltd., and Qidong Singamas Energy Equipment Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Singamas”).3

Between November 12, 2014 and November 19, 2014, the Department conducted onsite verification of CIMC's, Singamas's and the Government of the People's Republic of China's (GOC) questionnaire responses.4

On February 6, 2015, CIMC, Singamas and its holding company, Singamas Container Holdings Limited (Singamas Holding); the GOC; Petitioner; and Crowley Maritime Corporation and Crowley Liner Services, Inc. and Sea Star Line, LLC (hereafter, collectively, “Crowley”) filed case briefs. On February 12, 2015, CIMC, Singamas, Singamas Holding, the GOC, Petitioner, Crowley, and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. (J.B. Hunt) timely filed rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to the Department's request, Crowley and Petitioner filed additional scope comments to the record of this proceeding.5

The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013.

The Department received comments regarding the scope of this investigation from interested parties. As detailed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum,6 we have not made any changes to the scope.

The merchandise subject to investigation is closed (i.e., not open top) van containers exceeding 14.63 meters (48 feet) but generally measuring 16.154 meters (53 feet) in exterior length, which are designed for the intermodal transport 7 of goods other than bulk liquids within North America primarily by rail or by road vehicle, or by a combination of rail and road vehicle (domestic containers). Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under subheading 8609.00.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Imports of the subject merchandise which meet the definition of and requirements for “instruments of international traffic” pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1322 and 19 CFR 10.41a may be classified under subheading 9803.00.50, HTSUS. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix II to this notice.

The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby incorporated in, and adopted by, this notice.8 This memorandum also details the changes we made since the Preliminary Determination to the subsidy rates calculated for the mandatory respondents and all other producers/exporters. The Issues and 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 is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 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. A list of the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I.

For purposes of this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available and, because one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability in responding to the Department's requests for information, drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.9 For further information, see the section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences,” in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 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 regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

Authorization for incidental takings may 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 certain subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking 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.”

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): “(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].” Because the Marine Corps' activities constitute military readiness activities, they are not subject to the small numbers or specified geographic region limitations.

NMFS issued regulations governing the take of one species of marine mammal, by Level A and Level B harassment, incidental to training activities on March 13, 2015. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental take of marine mammals during the specified activities.

This LOA is effective from March 13, 2015, through March 12, 2020, and authorizes the incidental take of bottlenose dolphins that may result from the training exercises occurring at the BT-9 and BT-11 bombing targets located within the Marine Corps' Cherry Point Range Complex in Pamlico Sound, NC.

The Marine Corps would conduct weapons delivery training exercises (air-to-surface and surface-to-surface) at the two water-based bombing targets located within the Cherry Point Range Complex in North Carolina. The military readiness activities would occur between March 2015 and March 2020, year-round, day or night. The Marine Corps proposes to use small arms, large arms, bombs, rockets, grenades, and pyrotechnics for the air-to-surface and surface-to-surface training exercises, which qualify as military readiness activities. NMFS anticipates that take, by Level B (behavioral) and Level A harassment of individuals of Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) would result from the training exercises. The noise generated by the Marine Corps' activities would result in the incidental harassment of bottlenose dolphins, both behaviorally and in terms of physiological (auditory) impacts.

Take of marine mammals will be minimized through the implementation of the following mitigation and monitoring measures:

• Required pre- and post-exercise monitoring of the training areas to detect the presence of marine mammals during training exercises.

• Required monitoring of the training areas during active training exercises with required suspensions/delays of training activities if a marine mammal enters within any of the designated mitigation zones.

• Required reporting of stranded or injured marine mammals in the vicinity of the BT-9 and BT-11 bombing targets located within the Marine Corps' Cherry Point Range Complex in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina to the NMFS Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

• Required research on a real-time acoustic monitoring system to automate detection of bottlenose dolphins in the training areas.

Through this LOA, the Marine Corps is required to monitor for marine mammals and submit an annual report to NMFS by June 1, annually. The report will include data collected from the monitoring program. Additional information on the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements can be found in the final rule (80 FR 13264, March 13, 2015). The Marine Corps is also required to submit a comprehensive report, which shall provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation of all monitoring during the period of effectiveness of this LOA.

This Authorization remains valid through March 12, 2020 provided the Marine Corps remains in conformance with the conditions of the regulations and the LOA, and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in 50 CFR 218.240 through 218.249 and the LOA are implemented.

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if, after NMFS provides a notice of a proposed authorization to the public for review and comment: (1) NMFS makes certain findings; and (2) the taking is limited to harassment.

An Authorization shall be granted for the incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). The Authorization must also set forth the permissible methods of taking; other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat; and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. 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.”

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].

On September 8, 2014, NMFS received an application from BLM requesting that we issue an Authorization for the take of marine mammals, incidental to conducting one field-based land survey for a land claim of cultural sites located on a small island in the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago. BLM must conduct the land survey under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, as amended (ANCSA; 43 U.S.C. 1601-1624). NMFS determined the application complete and adequate on February 17, 2015.

BLM proposes to conduct one field-based land survey of a land claim made pursuant to section 14(h)(1) of the ANCSA by an Alaska Native Regional Corporation. The land survey may temporarily disturb Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) hauled out at the selected cultural site. BLM proposes to complete the land survey within one day between June 1 and July 31, 2015.

BLM would conduct the proposed activity within the vicinity of a major Steller sea lion haulout site identified in the regulations at 50 CFR 226.202 and the following aspects of the proposed activity would likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Noise generated by vessel approaches and departures; noise generated by personnel while conducting the land survey; and human presence during the proposed activity. Thus, NMFS anticipates that take, by Level B harassment only of one species of marine mammal could result from the specified activity. NMFS anticipates that take by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of Steller sea lions only would result from the specified activity.

BLM must conduct the land survey to support conveyance of existing cemetery sites and historical places to an Alaska Native Regional Corporation as required under the ANCSA. Once BLM concludes the survey no additional visits would be necessary for the proposed action.

BLM would complete the survey within one day (approximately 6-10 hours) between June 1 and July 31, 2015. Thus, the proposed Authorization, if issued, would be effective from June 1, 2015 through July 31, 2015. NMFS refers the reader to the Detailed Description of Activities section later in this notice for more information on the scope of the proposed activities.

BLM's application contains information on sensitive archaeological site locations prohibited from disclosure to the public under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The island is small (less than 5 acres), extremely rugged, and uninhabited by people. This notice will describe the specified geographic region as cultural sites located on a small island in the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago.

BLM proposes to conduct the land survey with a small group of no more than four people who would use a global position system (GPS) unit to determine the locational accuracy of the selected cultural site. After selecting the placement location for the survey marker, BLM surveyors would use shovels, digging bars, and mallets to set a group of official U.S. survey markers into the ground. BLM does not plan to use any power tools to conduct the land survey.

BLM personnel would access the selected cultural sites using two types of boats: A mid-sized marine vessel (approximately 15 meters (m); 50 feet (ft) in length) and a small skiff. The main vessel would approach the remote island at a speed of approximately 8 knots (kt) (9.2 miles per hour) and would launch the skiff to cross the shallower waters immediately surrounding the small island in the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago.

Once on land, surveyors would walk to the survey sites to conduct their activities. BLM does not propose to use any type of motorized vehicles on the small island.

There is a possibility that BLM would need to access the island by helicopter or sea plane, if they determine that accessing the island by sea would not be feasible due to weather or scheduling constraints. However, the likelihood of BLM using this mode of transit is extremely low given the high expense involved with chartering aircraft.

Table 1 in this notice provides the following information: All marine mammal species with possible or confirmed occurrence in the proposed survey areas on land; information on those species' regulatory status under the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); abundance; occurrence and seasonality in the activity area. NMFS refers the public the 2014 NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm for further information on the biology and distribution of these species. Based on recent survey reports, there are no other species of marine mammals present in the action area (BLM, Pers. Comm.)

NMFS categorizes the western DPS of Steller sea lion as a strategic stock and depleted under the MMPA and endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.). The latest abundance estimate for the western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Steller sea lions is 82,516 animals (Allen and Angliss, 2015).

The eastern DPS includes animals born east of Cape Suckling, AK (144° W) and the latest abundance estimate for the stock is 60,131 to 74,448 animals (Allen and Angliss, 2015). Steller sea lions range along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California (Loughlin et al., 1984), with centers of abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, respectively. The species is not known to migrate, but individuals disperse widely outside of the breeding season (late May through early July), thus potentially intermixing with animals from other areas. Recently, Jemison et al. (2013) summarized that there is regular movement of Steller sea lions from the western DPS (males and females equally) and eastern DPS (almost exclusively males) across the DPS boundary at Cape Suckling, AK. However, the proposed land survey location is over 1,000 kilometers from the DPS boundary and NMFS expects that few if any Steller sea lions from the eastern DPS would be present on the small island.

Under the ESA, NMFS has designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions based on the location of terrestrial rookery and haulout sites, spatial extent of foraging trips, and availability of prey items (50 CFR 226.202). Critical habitat includes a terrestrial zone that extends 0.9 km (3,000 ft) landward from the baseline or base point of a major haulout in Alaska. Critical habitat includes an air zone that extends 0.9 km (3,000 ft) above the terrestrial zone of a major haulout in Alaska, measured vertically from sea level. Critical habitat includes an aquatic zone that extends 20 nautical miles (37 km; 23 miles (mi)) seaward in state and federally managed waters from the baseline or basepoint of a major haulout in Alaska west of 144° W longitude. BLM's proposed action falls within an area designated as a major haulout for Steller sea lions.

The BLM, in collaboration with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, has not encountered any other species of marine mammal (e.g., the northern fur seal, (Callorhinus ursinus)) hauled out on the small island in the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago during the course of previous surveying activities within the area over the past 13 years (ADGF, Pers. Comm.). NMFS independently evaluated the likelihood of northern fur seal presence in the action area using the Ocean Biogeographic Information System Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations viewer (OBIS SEAMAP, 2015) and found no records of observations of northern fur seals within the proposed action area. Thus, NMFS will not consider this species further in this notice.

This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., personnel presence) have been observed to impact marine mammals. This discussion may also include reactions that NMFS considers to rise to the level of a take and those that we do not consider to rise to the level of a take. This section serves as a background of potential effects and does not consider either the specific manner in which the applicant will carry out the activity or the mitigation that will be implemented, and how either of those will shape the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that NMFS expects BLM to take during this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis” section will include the analysis of how this specific activity would impact marine mammals. NMFS will consider the content of the following sections: Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment; Proposed Mitigation; and Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals—and from that consideration—the likely impacts of this activity on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.

The appearance of BLM surveyors may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of Steller sea lions hauled out on the small island in the proposed action area. Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, and displacement. Disturbance may result in reactions ranging from an animal simply becoming alert to the presence of the surveyors (e.g., turning the head, assuming a more upright posture) to flushing from the haul-out site into the water. NMFS does not consider the lesser reactions to constitute behavioral harassment, or Level B harassment takes, but rather assumes that pinnipeds that move greater than 1 meter (m) (3.3 feet (ft)) or change the speed or direction of their movement in response to the presence of surveyors are behaviorally harassed, and thus subject to Level B taking. Animals that respond to the presence of surveyors by becoming alert, but do not move or change the nature of locomotion as described, are not considered to have been subject to behavioral harassment.

Reactions to human presence, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007). These behavioral reactions are often shown as: Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior; avoidance of areas; and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into the water from haul-outs or rookeries). If a marine mammal does react briefly to human presence by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if visual stimuli from human presence displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007).

Disturbances resulting from human activity can impact short- and long-term pinniped haul out behavior (Renouf et al., 1981; Schneider and Payne, 1983; Terhune and Almon, 1983; Allen et al., 1984; Stewart, 1984; Suryan and Harvey, 1999; Mortenson et al., 2000; and Kucey and Trites, 2006). Numerous studies have shown that human activity can flush harbor seals off haulout sites (Allen et al., 1984; Calambokidis et al., 1991; Suryan and Harvey, 1999; and Mortenson et al., 2000) or lead to Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi) avoidance of beach areas The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) avoiding beaches (Kenyon, 1972). In one case, human disturbance appeared to cause Steller sea lions to desert a breeding area at Northeast Point on St. Paul Island, Alaska (Kenyon, 1962).

In cases where vessels actively approached marine mammals (e.g., whale watching or dolphin watching boats), scientists have documented that animals exhibit altered behavior such as increased swimming speed, erratic movement, and active avoidance behavior (Bursk, 1983; Acevedo, 1991; Baker and MacGibbon, 1991; Trites and Bain, 2000; Williams et al., 2002; Constantine et al., 2003), reduced blow interval (Ritcher et al., 2003), disruption of normal social behaviors (Lusseau, 2003; 2006), and the shift of behavioral activities which may increase energetic costs (Constantine et al., 2003; 2004).

In 1997, Henry and Hammil (2001) conducted a study to measure the impacts of small boats (i.e., kayaks, canoes, motorboats and sailboats) on harbor seal haulout behavior in Métis Bay, Quebec, Canada. During that study, the authors noted that the most frequent disturbances (n=73) were caused by lower speed, lingering kayaks, and canoes (33.3 percent) as opposed to motorboats (27.8 percent) conducting high speed passes. The seal's flight reactions could be linked to a surprise factor by kayaks-canoes which approach slowly, quietly and low on water making them look like predators. However, the authors note that once the animals were disturbed, there did not appear to be any significant lingering effect on the recovery of numbers to their pre-disturbance levels. In conclusion, the study showed that boat traffic at current levels has only a temporary effect on the haulout behavior of harbor seals in the Métis Bay area.

In 2004, Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez (2007) evaluated the efficacy of buffer zones for watercraft around harbor seal haulout sites on Yellow Island, Washington. The authors estimated the minimum distance between the vessels and the haul-out sites; categorized the vessel types; and evaluated seal responses to the disturbances. During the course of the seven-weekend study, the authors recorded 14 human-related disturbances which were associated with stopped powerboats and kayaks. During these events, hauled out seals became noticeably active and moved into the water. The flushing occurred when stopped kayaks and powerboats were at distances as far as 453 and 1,217 ft (138 and 371 m) respectively. The authors note that the seals were unaffected by passing powerboats, even those approaching as close as 128 ft (39 m), possibly indicating that the animals had become tolerant of the brief presence of the vessels and ignored them. The authors reported that on average, the seals quickly recovered from the disturbances and returned to the haulout site in less than or equal to 60 minutes. Seal numbers did not return to pre-disturbance levels within 180 minutes of the disturbance less than one quarter of the time observed. The study concluded that the return of seal numbers to pre-disturbance levels and the relatively regular seasonal cycle in abundance throughout the area counter the idea that disturbances from powerboats may result in site abandonment (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez, 2007). As a general statement from the available information, pinnipeds exposed to intense (approximately 110 to 120 decibels re: 20 μPa) non-pulse sounds often leave haulout areas and seek refuge temporarily (minutes to a few hours) in the water (Southall et al., 2007).

There are three ways in which disturbance, as described previously, could result in more than Level B harassment of marine mammals. All three are most likely to be consequences of stampeding, a potentially dangerous occurrence in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and rush away from a stimulus. The three situations are: (1) Falling when entering the water at high-relief locations; (2) extended separation of mothers and pups; and (3) crushing of pups by large males during a stampede. However, NMFS does not expect any of these scenarios to occur at the proposed survey site.

Because hauled-out animals may move towards the water when disturbed, there is the risk of injury if animals stampede towards shorelines with precipitous relief (e.g., cliffs). However, while high-elevation sites exist on the small island, the haulout sites consist of ridges with unimpeded and non-obstructive access to the water. If disturbed, the small number of hauled-out adult animals may move toward the water without risk of encountering barriers or hazards that would otherwise prevent them from leaving the area. Moreover, the proposed area would not be crowded with large numbers of Steller sea lions during June or July, further eliminating the possibility of potentially injurious mass movements of animals attempting to vacate the haulout. Thus, in this case, NMFS considers the risk of injury, serious injury, or death to hauled-out animals as very low.

Finally, only adult Steller sea lions occupy the haulout site during June and July. No pups or breeding adults would be present during the proposed survey.

The probability of vessel and marine mammal interactions (i.e., vessel strike) occurring during the proposed activities is unlikely due to main vessels slow operational speed around the island, which is typically 8 knots (9.2 miles per hour) coupled with the observer and BLM personnel continually scanning the water for marine mammals presence during transit to the island. Thus, NMFS does not anticipate that take would result from the movement of the main vessel or skiff.

The only habitat modification associated with the proposed activity is the placement of a group of official U.S. survey markers into the ground. BLM would conduct the installation of the survey markers under the appropriate authorities (ANCSA) and would not use any power tools to set the markers.

NMFS expects that the presence of the surveyors would likely disturb any marine mammals present at the site. NMFS also expects that marine mammals would retreat to a distance where noise related to the use of shovels, digging bars, and mallets would not increase the disturbance. In most instances, wind and wave noise would also drown out the noise of the hand tools. At the conclusion of the survey, BLM would remove all survey equipment and would not leave any trash or field gear at the site.

NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed survey would result in any permanent effects on the habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use (i.e., fish and invertebrates). Based on the preceding discussion, NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed activity would have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

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 (where relevant).

The BLM proposes to implement several mitigation measures to reduce potential take by Level B (behavioral disturbance) harassment. Measures include: (1) Conducting slow and controlled approaches to the island by vessel and skiff as far away as possible from hauled out sea lions to prevent or minimize stampeding; (2) avoiding placing the skiff in the path of swimming sea lions that may be present; (3) beginning terrestrial activities as far away as possible from hauled out sea lions; (4) conducting slow movements to prevent or minimize stampeding; (5) avoiding loud noises (i.e., using hushed voices); (6) avoiding pinnipeds along access ways to sites by locating and taking a different access way and vacating the area as soon as possible after completing the land survey; (7) monitoring the offshore area for predators (such as killer whales and white sharks) and avoid flushing of pinnipeds when predators are observed in nearshore waters; and (8) using binoculars to detect pinnipeds before close approach to avoid being seen by animals.

BLM will use the methodologies and actions noted in this section which NMFS would include as mitigation measures in any issued Authorization to ensure that BLM mitigates impacts to marine mammals to the lowest level practicable. The primary method of mitigating the risk of disturbance to sea lions, which will be in use at all times, is the selection of judicious routes of approach to the survey site, avoiding close contact with sea lions hauled out on shore, and the use of extreme caution upon approach. In no case will BLM deliberately approach marine mammals. BLM personnel would select a pathway of approach to the survey sites that minimizes the number of marine mammals potentially harassed. In general, BLM personnel would stay inshore of sea lions whenever possible to allow slow and controlled egress to the ocean. The survey would last for approximately 6-10 hours, after which personnel would vacate the survey site. Any marine mammals that may have been disturbed by the presence of surveyors could re-occupy the site after completion of the survey.

NMFS has carefully evaluated BLM's proposed mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of affecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. The 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; and

• 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 here:

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 vessel or visual presence that NMFS expects 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 exposed to vessel or visual presence that NMFS expects 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 vessel or visual presence that NMFS expects 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 the evaluation of BLM proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal 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 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 Authorizations 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 NMFS expects to be present in the proposed action area.

BLM submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan in section 13 of their Authorization application. NMFS or BLM may modify or supplement the plan based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.

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

1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action, (i.e., presence, abundance, distribution, and/or density of species).

2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g., sound or visual stimuli), through better understanding of one or more of the following: The action itself and its environment (e.g., sound source characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); the affected species (e.g., life history or dive pattern); the likely co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action (in whole or part) associated with specific adverse effects; and/or the likely biological or behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal (e.g., age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or feeding areas).

3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible, e.g., at what distance or received level).

4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: The long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or the population, species, or stock (e.g. through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival).

5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or acoustic habitat (e.g., through characterization of longer-term contributions of multiple sound sources to rising ambient noise levels and assessment of the potential chronic effects on marine mammals).

6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic activities or natural factors occurring in the region.

7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures.

8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.

As part of its Authorization application, BLM proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, and to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the proposed Authorization. These include:

• The vessel would circle the island from the greatest distance feasible for accurate observation to allow the marine mammal observer (observer) to map and record the initial locations, numbers, and behaviors of Steller sea lions using the island before commencing the survey. The observer would use this information to recommend where BLM personnel should approach the survey area to minimize disruption to any Steller sea lions hauled out on the island.

• Once on land, the observer would record any changes in sea lion locations, numbers, or behaviors observed during the reconnaissance.

• The observer would post at a location (e.g., a ridge or other high elevation area) to visually observe sea lions with no or minimal risk of modifying their behavior. If possible, the observer would also have the land survey crew in sight and would communicate with the surveyors using hand-held radios. The observer would advise the crew on the location and behavior of the sea lions to maximize the safety of both the sea lions and the crew.

Proposed monitoring requirements in relation to BLM's proposed activities would include species counts, numbers of observed disturbances, and descriptions of the disturbance behaviors during the monitoring surveys, including location, date, and time of the event. In addition, BLM would record observations regarding the number and species of any marine mammals either observed in the water or hauled out.

BLM can add to the knowledge of pinnipeds in the proposed action area by noting observations of: (1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and (3) rare or unusual species of marine mammals for agency follow-up.

If at any time injury, serious injury, or mortality of the species for which take is authorized should occur, or if take of any kind of any other marine mammal occurs, and such action may be a result of the proposed land survey, BLM would suspend survey activities and contact NMFS immediately to determine how best to proceed to ensure that another injury or death does not occur and to ensure that the applicant remains in compliance with the MMPA.

BLM would submit a draft report to NMFS Office of Protected Resources no later than 90 days after the expiration of the proposed Authorization, if issued. The report will include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the proposed Authorization. BLM will submit a final report to the Director of the NMFS Office of Protected Resources within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If BLM receives no comments from NMFS on the report, NMFS will consider the draft report to be the final report.

The report will describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the proposed project. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The report will provide:

1. A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all research activities.

2. Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals observed throughout all monitoring activities.

3. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals exposed to human presence associated with the survey activities.

4. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the Authorization and full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring.

In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (e.g., vessel-strike, stampede, etc.), BLM personnel shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248. The report must include the following information:

• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

• Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);

• Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

• Fate of the animal(s); and

• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

BLM shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We will work with BLM to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. BLM may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.

In the event that BLM discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the marine mammal observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in the next paragraph), BLM will immediately report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248. The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above this section. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with BLM to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

In the event that BLM discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), BLM will report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248 within 24 hours of the discovery. BLM personnel will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to us. BLM can continue their survey activities while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

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].

All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. NMFS expects that the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures would minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes. NMFS considers the potential for take by injury, serious injury, or mortality as remote. NMFS expects that the presence of BLM personnel could disturb of animals hauled out close to the survey site and that the animals may alter their behavior or attempt to move away from the surveyors.

As discussed earlier, NMFS considers an animal to have been harassed if it moved greater than 1 m (3.3 ft) in response to the surveyors' presence or if the animal was already moving and changed direction and/or speed, or if the animal flushed into the water. NMFS does not consider animals that became alert without such movements as harassed.

For the purpose of this proposed Authorization, BLM proposed take estimates based on sea lion survey counts obtained from NMFS' National Marine Mammal (NMML) Steller Sea Lion Count Database and from researchers with extensive knowledge and experience of the survey location. Data from NMFS' National Marine Mammal (NMML) Steller Sea Lion Count Database indicate that approximately 80 adult Steller sea lions of the western DPS haul out on the small island mainly in late winter and early spring (NMML, 2015). However, use of that particular haulout decreases after May in the summer with NMML's database records (2000-2008) indicating a maximum of eight adults hauled out on the island during June or July (NMML, 2015; B. Fadely, Pers. Comm.).

These observations formed the basis of the actual number of marine mammals that may be subject to take. Based on best available information, NMFS estimates that the survey activities could potentially affect by Level B behavioral harassment up to 20 Steller sea lions over the course of the Authorization. This estimate represents less than one percent (0.0002) of the western DPS of Steller sea lions and accounts for a maximum disturbance of 20 animals during the one-day visit to the island. Actual take may be slightly less if animals decide to haul out at a different location for the day or if animals are foraging at the time of the survey activities.

NMFS does not propose to authorize any injury, serious injury, or mortality. NMFS expect all potential takes to fall under the category of Level B harassment only.

BLM would share observations and counts of marine mammals and all observed disturbances to the appropriate state and federal agencies at the conclusion of the survey.

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). The lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population level effects) forms the basis of a negligible impact finding. 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 considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

Although BLM's survey activities may disturb sea lions hauled out on the island, NMFS expects those impacts to occur to a small, localized group of animals for a limited duration (e.g., 6-10 hours in one day). Steller sea lions would likely become alert or, at most, flush into the water in reaction to the presence of BLM personnel during the proposed activities. Disturbance will be limited to a short duration, allowing adult sea lions to reoccupy the island within a short amount of time. Thus, the proposed action is unlikely to result in long-term impacts such as permanent abandonment of the haul-out.

BLM's activities would occur during the least sensitive time (e.g., summer, June through July) for hauled out sea lions on the island. Only adult Steller sea lions occupy the haulout site during June and July. Thus, pups or breeding adults would not be present during the proposed one-day survey.

Moreover, BLM's mitigation measures regarding transit speed, island approaches, and survey site ingress and egress would minimize the potential for stampedes and large-scale movements. Thus, the potential for large-scale movements and stampede leading to injury, serious injury, or mortality is low.

NMFS proposes to authorize take for the Western DPS of Steller sea lion listed as endangered under the ESA and classified as a strategic stock and depleted under the MMPA. BLM's proposed action falls within an area designated as a major haulout for Steller sea lions under the critical habitat designations of the ESA. Steller sea lions spend much of their time in marine water but they do rest and breed on land. During the breeding and pupping season (late May to early July), reproductively active adult Steller sea lions occupy rookeries (terrestrial birthing sites) whereas non-breeding individuals use haulouts (terrestrial resting sites). In this case, relatively small numbers (less than 10) of adult, non-reproducing, Steller sea lions use the island as a haulout during the months of June and July when the one-day survey would occur. Moreover, BLM's proposed activities would not significantly alter the physical or biological features of the critical habitat. Project related disturbances to Steller sea lion would result from stimuli related to vessel and human presence within the proposed area. However, the disturbances related to these activities are temporary in nature and not expected to permanently modify the critical habitat.

In summary, NMFS anticipates that impacts to hauled-out Steller sea lions during BLM's land survey activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (i.e., less than one day) and limited intensity (i.e., temporary flushing at most). NMFS does not expect stampeding, and therefore injury or mortality to occur (see “Mitigation” for more details). 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 proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from BLM's proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that BLM's proposed activities could potentially affect, by Level B harassment only, one species of marine mammal under our jurisdiction. NMFS estimates that the survey activities could potentially affect by Level B behavioral harassment up to 20 Steller sea lions over the course of the proposed Authorization. This estimate represents less than one percent (0.0002) of the western DPS of Steller sea lions and accounts for a maximum disturbance of 20 animals during the one-day visit to the island. For the Western DPS of Steller sea lion, this estimate is small (less than one percent) relative to the population size of 82,516 animals. However, actual take may be slightly less if animals decide to haul out at a different location for the day or if animals are foraging at the time of the survey activities. Based on the analysis contained in this notice 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 preliminarily finds that BLM's proposed activities would take small numbers of marine mammals relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. The proposed activity occurs south of the latitude that NMFS' categorizes as within Arctic waters (i.e., north of 60° N). 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.

For the reasons already described in this notice, NMFS has determined that the issuance of a proposed Authorization may have an effect on species or critical habitat protected under the ESA (specifically, the Steller sea lion). Under section 7 of the ESA, BLM has initiated formal consultation with NMFS on the proposed land survey. NMFS (i.e., National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Permits and Conservation Division) will also consult internally with NMFS on the proposed issuance of an Authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. NMFS and BLM will conclude the consultation prior to a determination on the issuance of the Authorization.

To meet NEPA requirements for the issuance of a proposed Authorization to BLM, NMFS intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on NMFS' proposed action. Prior to making a final decision on the issuance of an Authorization, NMFS would decide whether or not to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact. NMFS will review all comments submitted in response to this notice to complete the NEPA process prior to making a final decision on the Authorization request.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes issuing an Incidental Harassment Authorization to BLM for take incidental to conducting a one-day field-based land survey of cultural sites located on a small island within the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago, during the period of June 1, 2015 through July 31, 2015, provided they incorporate the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

This section contains the draft text for the proposed Authorization. NMFS proposes to include this language in the Authorization if issued.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—Alaska Division of Lands and Cadastral, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513 and/or its designees (holders of the Authorization) are hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to harass small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting a one-day field-based land survey of cultural sites.

1. This Authorization is valid from June 1 through July 31, 2015.

2. This Authorization is valid only for land survey activities that would occur in the following specified geographic area: The island within the eastern Aleutian Islands archipelago identified in BLM's application.

a. The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the following species: 20 Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus).

b. The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or death of any of the species listed in Condition 3(a) or the taking of any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this Authorization.

c. The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization.

A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of the BLM, its designees, and field crew personnel operating under the authority of this Authorization at all times. BLM must also abide by the Terms and Conditions included within the Biological Opinion's Incidental Take Statement.

BLM and its designees must implement the following mitigation measures:

a. Conduct a slow and controlled approach to the island by vessel and skiff as far away as possible from hauled out sea lions to prevent or minimize stampeding.

b. Ensure that the main vessel and skiff approach the island at a reasonably slow speed (i.e., no faster than 8 knots (9.2 miles per hour)).

c. Monitor for offshore predators such as great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) or killer whales (Orcinus orca) prior to accessing the island. If BLM and/or its designees see predators in the area, they must not disturb the animals until the area is free of predators.

d. Avoid placing the skiff in the path of swimming sea lions that may be present in the area.

e. Select a pathway of approach to the survey site that minimizes the number of marine mammals harassed and conduct slow movements while accessing and exiting the island to prevent or minimize stampeding.

f. Maintain a quiet working atmosphere, avoid loud noises, and use hushed voices in the presence of hauled out pinnipeds.

g. Initiate the land survey away from hauled out sea lions as far away as practicable. If BLM and/or its designees need to survey in the direction of hauled out sea lions, proceed in a slow and controlled manner to minimize disturbance and allow animals to slowly flush into the water.

h. Use binoculars to detect pinnipeds before close approach to avoid being seen by animals.

The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct monitoring of marine mammals present at the survey site. BLM and/or its designees shall have at least one NMFS-qualified biologist serve as a marine mammal observer to evaluate incidental take and implement mitigation measures.

a. BLM and/or its designees shall record the following:

i. Species counts (with numbers of adults/juveniles); and:

ii. Numbers of disturbances, by species and age, according to a three-point scale of intensity including: (1) Head orientation in response to disturbance, which may include turning head towards the disturbance, craning head and neck while holding the body rigid in a u-shaped position, or changing from a lying to a sitting position and/or slight movement of less than 1 meter; “alert”; (2) Movements in response to or away from disturbance, typically over short distances (1-3 meters) and including dramatic changes in direction or speed of locomotion for animals already in motion; “movement”; and (3) All flushes to the water as well as lengthier retreats (>3 meters); “flight”.

iii. Information on the weather, including the tidal state and horizontal visibility.

b. If applicable, the observer shall note observations of marked or tag-bearing pinnipeds or carcasses, as well as any rare or unusual species of marine mammal.

c. If applicable, the observer shall note the presence of any offshore predators (date, time, number, and species).

The holder of this Authorization is required to:

a. Draft Report: Submit a draft monitoring report to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service within 90 days after the Authorization expires. NMFS will review the Draft Report which is subject to review and comment by NMFS. BLM must address any recommendations made by NMFS in the Final Report prior to submission to NMFS. If NMFS decides that the draft final report needs no comments, NMFS will consider the draft report as the Final Report.

b. Final Report: BLM shall prepare and submit a Final Report to NMFS within 30 days following resolution of any comments on the draft report from NMFS.

In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (e.g., vessel-strike, stampede, etc.), BLM and/or its designees shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248. The report must include the following information:

• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

• Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);

• Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

• Fate of the animal(s); and

• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

BLM shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with BLM to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. BLM may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.

In the event that BLM discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the marine mammal observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in the next paragraph), BLM will immediately report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248. The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above this section. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with BLM to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

In the event that BLM discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), BLM will report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586-7248 within 24 hours of the discovery. BLM personnel will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to us. BLM can continue their survey activities while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

NMFS requests comments on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed Authorization for the proposed activities. Please include any supporting data or literature citations with your comments to help inform our final decision on BLM's request for an Authorization.

Deletions

On 3/6/2015 (80 FR 12156) and 3/13/2015 (80 FR 13351-13352), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

This committee's charter is being renewed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 175 and 10301 and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a), established the Board.

The Board is a statutory Federal advisory committee that serves as an independent adviser to the Secretary of Defense to provide advice and recommendations on strategic, policies, and practices designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the reserve components. The Board shall provide to the Secretary of Defense, for transmittal to the President and the Congress, an annual report on any reserve component matters that the Board considers appropriate.

The Board reports to the Secretary of Defense and/or the Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)). The USD(P&R) may act upon the Board's advice and recommendations.

Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 10301(c), the Board shall be composed of 20 members, appointed or designated as follows:

a. A civilian appointed by the Secretary of Defense from among persons determined by the Secretary to have the knowledge of, and experience in, policy matters relevant to national security and reserve component matters necessary to carry out the duties of Chair of the Board, who shall serve as Chair of the Board.

b. Two active or retired reserve officers or enlisted members designated by the Secretary of Defense, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Army:

(1) One of whom shall be a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or a former member of the Army National Guard of the United States in the Retired Reserve; and,

(2) One of whom shall be a member or retired member of the Army Reserve.

c. Two active or retired reserve officers or enlisted members designated by the Secretary of Defense, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy:

(1) One of whom shall be an active or retired officer of the Navy Reserve; and,

(2) One of whom shall be an active or retired officer of the Marine Corps Reserve.

d. Two active or retired reserve officers or enlisted members designated by the Secretary of Defense, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Air Force:

(1) One of whom shall be a member of the Air National Guard of the United States or a former member of the Air National Guard of the United States in the Retired Reserve; and,

(2) One of whom shall be a member or retired member of the Air Force Reserve.

e. One active or retired reserve officer or enlisted member of the U.S. Coast Guard designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

f. Ten persons appointed or designated by the Secretary of Defense, each of whom shall be a United States citizen having significant knowledge of, and experience in, policy matters relevant to national security and reserve component matters and shall be one of the following:

(1) An individual not employed in any Federal or State department or agency.

(2) An individual employed by a Federal or State department or agency.

(3) An officer of a regular component of the armed forces on active duty, or an officer of a reserve component of the armed forces in an active status, who:

a. Is serving or has served in a senior position on the Joint Staff, the headquarters staff of a Combatant Command, or the headquarters staff of an armed force; and,

b. Has experience in joint professional military education, joint qualification, and joint operations matters.

g. A reserve officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, who is a general or flag officer, recommended by the Chair and designated by the Secretary of Defense, who shall serve without vote:

(1) As military adviser to the Chair;

(2) As military executive officer of the Board; and,

(3) As supervisor of the operations and staff of the Board.

h. A senior enlisted member of a reserve component recommended by the Chair and designated by the Secretary of Defense, who shall serve without vote as enlisted military adviser to the Chair.

Each member, based upon his or her individual professional experience, provides his or her best judgment on the matters before the Board, and he or she does so in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Board members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees, will be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee (SGE) members. Board members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will serve as regular government employee (RGE) members pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a). Members of the Board shall serve a term of service of one-to-four years, and their appointments must be renewed by the Secretary of Defense on an annual basis. No member may serve more than two consecutive terms of service without Secretary of Defense or Deputy Secretary of Defense approval.

Board members are not compensated for service on the Board, but each member is reimbursed for travel and per diem as it pertains to official business of the Board.

DoD, when necessary and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Board. Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, to include terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the USD(P&R), as the Board's Sponsor.

Such subcommittees will not work independently of the Board and will report all of their recommendations and advice solely to the Board for full and open deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees.

Each member, based upon his or her individual professional experience, provides his or her best judgment on the matters before the Board, and he or she does so in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. All subcommittee members will be appointed by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense to a term of service of one-to-four years, with annual renewals, even if the individual in question is already a member of the Board. Subcommittee members will not serve more than two consecutive terms of service, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Subcommittee members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be appointed as an expert or consultant pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, to serve as a SGE member. Subcommittee members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a), to serve as a RGE member. With the exception of reimbursement of official travel and per diem related to the Board or its subcommittees, subcommittee members will serve without compensation.

All subcommittees operate under the provisions of FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and established DoD policies and procedures.

Currently, DoD has approved three permanent subcommittees to the Board. The subcommittees will have no more than 15 members and will normally meet once per quarter. A subcommittee Chairperson will be appointed by the Secretary of Defense.

The three permanent subcommittees and their missions are:

a. Subcommittee on Enhancing DoD's Role in the Homeland is focused on improving the capability and capacity of the reserve component to address the increasing threats to the homeland.

b. Subcommittee on Ensuring a Ready, Capable, Available, and Sustainable Operational Reserve is focused on retaining the operational capability and experience within the reserve component to meet future threats.

c. Subcommittee on Supporting and Sustaining Reserve Component Personnel assess whether the current Service member, families, and employers programs and policies are meeting the needs of an operational reserve.

The Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD officer or employee, appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures. The Board's DFO is required to attend all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees for the entire duration of each and every meeting. However, in the absence of the Board's DFO, a properly approved Alternate DFO, duly appointed to the Board according to established DoD policies and procedures, must attend the entire duration of all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees.

The DFO, or the Alternate DFO, calls all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees; prepares and approves all meeting agendas; and adjourns any meeting when the DFO, or the Alternate DFO, determines adjournment to be in the public interest or required by governing regulations or DoD policies and procedures.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Board.

All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Board's DFO can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

The DFO, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Board. The DFO, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.

The agenda is as follows:

April 20, 2015, speakers and discussions on the Department of the Navy Culture of Innovation Initiatives.

Individuals or interested groups may submit written statements for consideration by the SECNAV Advisory Panel at any time or in response to the agenda of a schedule meeting. All requests must be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address detailed below. If the written statement is in response to the agenda mentioned in this meeting notice, it must be received at least five days prior to the meeting in question. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the SECNAV Advisory Panel before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. For further information write to: Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy, (Policy), Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel, Designated Federal Officer, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-1000.

The Proposed Action evaluated in the Draft EIS would occur within an approximate 5-year planning horizon from the publication of the Record of Decision anticipated in 2016, and address existing and anticipated facility deficiencies at MBW. MBW is part of a highly urbanized metropolitan area of DC, with the Main Post and Building 20 located at the intersection of 8th and I Streets SE. in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, the largest historic district and one of the most densely populated residential neighborhoods in the city. The MBW Annex is located at the intersection of 7th Street SE. and Virginia Avenue SE. in the Near Southeast neighborhood, which has been an emerging growth area as a result of revitalization efforts that began in the 1990s and is transitioning to an established neighborhood with a growing residential community.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to address existing and anticipated facility deficiencies at MBW in order to better support the functions of the Marine Corps units assigned to MBW. The Proposed Action is needed for the Marine Corps to meet current Quality of Life (QOL), efficiency, sustainability, life safety, Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection (AT/FP) requirements, and facilities standards. Most of these requirements are set forth in the Department of Defense (DoD) Unified Facilities Criteria (UFCs) for planning, design, construction, sustainment, restoration, and modernization.

The existing BEQ (Building 20) has multiple deficiencies relating to force protection, minimum space requirements, QOL, life safety, sustainability, and energy efficiency and cannot be renovated or redesigned to meet current standards. No existing MBW property can accommodate the entire replacement BEQ requirement (BEQ, support facilities, and parking) at a single site. However, the below-grade parking at Building 20 could be retained to meet parking needs associated with the replacement BEQ Complex. To comply with current standards and continue to meet MBW mission requirements, the Marine Corps needs to either acquire property, establish a tenant site on federal or DoD property, or select a site on DoD property to accommodate a portion of the replacement BEQ requirement (BEQ and support facilities) and construct a replacement BEQ near the MBW Main Post. The Proposed Action does not include any change to the MBW mission or staffing levels.

Building 7 interior renovations are required to improve space utilization, meet life safety standards, improve attainment of sustainability goals, and address certain AT/FP shortfalls.

The purpose and need for the following projects are aligned with fostering MBW integration with the community consistent with current UFC guidance:

• Improve the MBW Annex gate at 7th and K Streets SE to provide a “sense of arrival” for both installation personnel and visitors.

• Make aesthetic improvements (e.g., signs, door awnings, lighting, and landscaping) so that all building exteriors present a more attractive, less utilitarian appearance to the surrounding neighborhood.

• Incorporate pedestrian-friendly amenities (e.g., pedestrian paths, signage systems, seating, lighting, and landscaping) into MBW properties that are safe and appropriately sized to their surroundings.

Each of these projects is a separate, distinct, and independently complete and actionable project.

The Draft EIS also discusses the need for optimal reuse of Building 20 or the Building 20 site and long-term solutions for MBW space needs.

The Draft EIS evaluates five action alternatives. Projects analyzed in the Draft EIS and common to all five alternatives include:

• Replacement BEQ Complex: A multi-story BEQ Complex (including parking and support facilities) to replace the functions currently housed in Building 20. The proposed replacement BEQ Complex would be constructed to accommodate 125 standard Marine Corps 2+0 berthing rooms, which would provide a 250-bed sleeping capacity. In addition, the replacement BEQ Complex would accommodate the following supporting uses: Music training, enlisted dining facility, company administration space, classroom training space, fitness facility, and armory.

• Main Post renovation projects: Interior renovations to Building 7 at the Main Post.

• Projects to foster integration of MBW with the community: These include improvements to the MBW Annex gate at 7th and K Streets SE. and improvements to the building facades, fencing, infrastructure, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping throughout the installation.

Alternative 1—Site A. Under Alternative 1, the Marine Corps would acquire privately owned land and a government-owned right-of-way (ROW) for the proposed BEQ Complex. Alternative 1, Site A, consists of 3.0 acres in Squares 929 and 930 and an approximate 340-foot segment of L Street between 8th and 9th Streets SE. The affected segment of L Street SE. would be closed to vehicular and pedestrian traffic and street parking. For the purposes of this EIS, it is expected that the replacement BEQ Complex would be constructed within the L Street ROW.

Alternative 2—Site B. Under Alternative 2, the Marine Corps would acquire privately-owned land and a government-owned ROW for the replacement BEQ Complex. Alternative 2, Site B, consists of 1.8 acres in Square 976 and an approximate 315-foot segment of the L Street ROW between 10th and 11th Streets SE. Unlike Alternative 1, there would be no construction within the L Street ROW. This segment of L Street would be closed to vehicular traffic and on-street parking, but it would remain open for pedestrians. No structures would be constructed within the adjacent Virginia Avenue Park, and the park would remain open to public use. The segment of the ROW and the adjacent portion of Virginia Avenue Park are included within this site as a means of satisfying the AT/FP vehicular standoff distance, while also allowing public use to continue.

Alternative 3—Site C. The land comprising Site C is federally-owned, but subject to a master development plan and agreement between GSA and a private developer (Forest City Washington) authorized by prior special legislation. An agreement with Forest City Washington and GSA to transfer Site C to the DoN/USMC would be required in order for Site C to be selected. Under Alternative 3, the Marine Corps obtain appropriate real estate interest in a portion of the federally owned land at the Southeast Federal Center (SEFC) for the proposed replacement BEQ Complex and a 3-story above ground parking structure. Alternative 3, Site C, is 2.1 acres within Square 853, bounded by M Street SE. to the north and Tingey Street SE. to the south. In addition to having to reach an agreement with Forest City Washington and GSA, under this alternative, the SEFC “The Yards” Redevelopment Master Plan would need to be revised.

Alternative 4—Site D. Under Alternative 4, the Marine Corps would establish a tenant site on 1.67 acres of federally owned land at the northern end of Square 953, within the boundary of the Washington Navy Yard (WNY). The existing land use includes an administrative building (Building 169) as well as tennis and basketball courts east of Building 169, all of which have been identified as areas for potential redevelopment in the WNY Master Plan (approved by the National Capital Planning Commission on November 6, 2014). Also included is the parking lot south of Building 169 (16 spaces) and potentially a portion of Poor Street that connects Parsons Avenue and 10th Street SE. BEQ construction on this site would require the demolition of Building 169, which is currently occupied by MBW functions. The existing below-grade parking at the Building 20 site would be maintained to satisfy the BEQ Complex parking requirement.

Alternative 5—Site E. Under Alternative 5, the Marine Corps would use 0.89-acre within the boundary of the MBW Annex (Squares 881 and 881W). For the purposes of this EIS, it is expected that the replacement BEQ Complex construction would occur within the 6th Street L'Enfant Plan viewshed between Building 25 (Annex building) and Building 26 (Annex parking garage). The new facility would be sited as close to Building 25 as possible and would connect via a breezeway between the replacement BEQ Complex and the western end of Building 25. The site currently contains a basketball court that would be relocated to the north of Building 25. The existing below-grade parking at the Building 20 site would be maintained to satisfy the BEQ Complex parking requirement.

The Marine Corps has not identified a preferred alternative at this time. Each of the action alternatives involve trade-offs among economic, technical, environmental, and Marine Corps statutory mission requirements. A preferred alternative will be selected in the Final EIS after public comments on the Draft EIS are evaluated.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Reaffirmation Agreement.

OMB Control Number: 1845—NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households, Private Sector, State, Local and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 28,880.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,465.

Abstract: The HEA provides for a maximum amount that a borrower can receive per year and in total. If a borrower receives more than one of these maximum amounts, the borrower is rendered ineligible for further title IV aid (including Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Federal Work-Study, and Teacher Education Assistance for Higher Education (TEACH) Grants) unless the borrower repays the excess amount or agreed to repay the excess amount according to the terms and conditions of the promissory note that the borrower signed. Agreeing to repay the excess amount according to the terms and conditions of the promissory note that the borrower signed is called “reaffirmation”. ED and FFEL Program lenders will use the information on this form to enforce the borrower's obligation to repay the total FFEL or Direct Loan debt that the borrower obtained including the amounts in excess of the annual or aggregate loan limit.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Understanding the Impact of Providing Information to Parents about the Role of Algebra II: An Opportunistic Study.

OMB Control Number: 1850—NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,468.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 132.

Abstract: In June 2013, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed House Bill (HB) 5 into law, which changed high school graduation requirements for public school students in Texas. Prior to this, most students were required to complete algebra II in order to graduate from high school. After the enactment of HB 5, completing algebra II is optional—students may elect to complete algebra II as part of two of the graduation plans offered under HB 5. REL Southwest is working with the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to carry out an opportunistic experiment to determine if directly providing parents/guardians, prior to students' selection of their courses, with information on the importance of completing algebra II for college access and success has an impact on the percentage of students who enroll in and complete algebra II by the end of their junior year. REL Southwest will investigate the impact of providing parents/guardians with information about the role of algebra II in college access and success in a randomized controlled trial in which the treatment schools provide parents/guardians of students with information about the role of algebra II in college access and success, while control schools continue business-as-usual.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection requirements for the collection described below with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0248.

Abstract: The information collected by the FERC-725B, Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection, is required to implement the statutory provisions of Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824o).

On January 18, 2008, the Commission issued order 706,2 approving eight Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) for Commission approval. The CIP version 1 Reliability Standards, (CIP-002-1 through CIP-009-1),3 require certain users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System to comply with specific requirements to safeguard critical cyber assets. These standards help protect the nation's Bulk-Power System against potential disruptions from cyber-attacks. The CIP Reliability Standards include one actual reporting requirement and several recordkeeping requirements. Specifically, CIP-008-1 requires responsible entities to report cyber security incidents to the Electricity Sector-Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ES-ISAC). In addition, the eight CIP Reliability Standards require responsible entities to develop various policies, plans, programs, and procedures. However, the CIP Reliability Standards do not require a responsible entity to report to the Commission, ERO or Regional Entities, the various policies, plans, programs and procedures. Nonetheless, a showing of the documented policies, plans, programs and procedures is required to demonstrate compliance with the CIP Reliability Standards.

The Commission approved minor changes in CIP versions 2 and 3 Reliability Standards on September 30, 2009, and March 31, 2010,4 respectively. On April 19, 2012, the Commission issued Order No. 761, approving the CIP version 4 Standards (CIP-002-4 through CIP-009-4) and an implementation plan that scheduled their enforcement to begin October 1, 2014.5 The fundamental change in the CIP version 4 Standards was that all subject entities would use the same `bright line' criteria to determine which of the facilities they owned were subject to the required policies, plans, programs and procedures (which remained nearly the same as for prior versions).

On November 22, 2013, the Commission issued Order No. 791, approving the CIP version 5 Standards (CIP-002-5 through CIP-009-5, CIP-010-1 and CIP-011-1) and the proposed implementation plan. The CIP version 5 Standards are currently scheduled to be implemented and enforceable beginning April 2016. Order No. 791 eliminated the enforceability of the CIP version 4 Standards. The Commission also approved nineteen new or revised definitions associated with the CIP version 5 Standards for inclusion in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary). The CIP version 5 Standards identify and categorize BES Cyber Systems using a new methodology based on whether a BES Cyber System has a Low, Medium, or High Impact on the reliable operation of the bulk electric system. At a minimum, a BES Cyber System must be categorized as a Low Impact asset. Once a BES Cyber System is categorized, a responsible entity must comply with the associated requirements of the CIP version 5 Standards that apply to the impact category. The CIP version 5 Standards include 12 requirements with new cyber security controls, which address Electronic Security Perimeters (CIP-005-5), Systems Security Management (CIP-007-5), Incident Reporting and Response Planning (CIP-008-5), Recovery Plans for BES Cyber Systems (CIP-009-5), and Configuration Change Management and Vulnerability Assessments (CIP-010-1).

Type of Respondent: Entities registered with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

Estimate of Annual Burden: There are three tables presenting burden associated with CIP Reliability Standards in the following section.

• The first table illustrates burden associated with CIP version 5 Reliability Standards.

• The second table illustrates burden associated with CIP version 3 and 4 Reliability Standards.

• The third and last table is a summation of the total burden for all active CIP-related Reliability Standards (i.e. CIP Versions 3-5).

Regarding CIP standards unaffected by CIP Version 5, the estimated burden has been adjusted to account for a reduction in affected entities.7 The applicable estimate related to CIP Version 3 and 4 standards (related to the active components) is provided in the table below. (For display purposes, the numbers in the tables below have been rounded, however exact figures were used in the calculations.)

The following items represent the estimated total annual burden for FERC-725B and includes all burden associated with CIP Reliability Standards.11

• Number of respondents: 1,415 (Not all entities with CIP-related functions will be obligated to comply with every CIP reliability standard.)

• Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,214,042.

• Total Annual Cost: $91,830,137 (1,214,042 hours * $75.64 = $91,830,137).

• Average Cost per Respondent: $64,898 12 ($91,830,137 ÷ 1,415 entities = $64,898).

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a Federal or state agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) has requested the EPA Administrator issue a specific exemption for the use of streptomycin sulfate on grapefruit grown for fresh market to control citrus canker (caused by the bacteria Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Citri (Xac)). Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request. Pursuant to 40 CFR 166.24(a)(8), the regulations governing FIFRA section 18 allow for publication of a notice of receipt of an application for an emergency exemption if the Administrator determines that publication is appropriate. The subject emergency exemption application submitted by the FDACS proposes a use of a pesticide which contains the active ingredient, streptomycin sulfate, also used in humans and animals as an antibiotic drug.

As part of this request, the FDACS asserts that citrus canker has spread throughout the citrus growing areas causing significant economic losses. FDACS states that this introduced pathogen has become a serious threat to the viability of the fresh market grapefruit industry in the state of Florida.

The FDACS proposes to make no more than two applications per crop of streptomycin sulfate, at a rate of 0.344 lbs active ingredient per acre (a.i./A), equivalent to 0.6875 lbs formulated product (equivalent to 50% streptomycin) per acre. A maximum total of 0.688 lbs a.i./A (1.375 lbs product/A) could potentially be applied on up to 47,656 acres of grapefruit in June through September of 2015. Use is possible statewide, but would primarily be in the commercial grapefruit producing counties of Polk, Hendry, Highlands, De Soto, Hardee, St. Lucie, Indian River, Collier, Manatee, and Martin. At maximum rates, applications, and acreage, 32,763 lbs of streptomycin sulfate (65,527 lbs formulated product), could be used under the proposed program.

This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 allows publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing use of a pesticide which contains the active ingredient, streptomycin sulfate, also used in humans and animals as an antibiotic drug. This notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.

The Agency will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the FDACS.

General Information: EPA proposes to create a new system of records under the Privacy Act to integrate the legacy Superfund data collection, reporting and tracking modules into one single system. This single system will transform the Superfund program by improving operational effectiveness, reducing costs, streamlining business processes, and enhancing information management capabilities. The Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) is an electronic repository of Superfund documents routinely used to disseminate records in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, establishment of Administrative Records (ARs), and litigation support. The SEMS database application supports the electronic capture, imaging, indexing and tracking of records which document investigation, cleanup, and enforcement activities at potential and existing hazardous waste sites, as mandated by CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.

The types of information in the system include data and information that support program activities and decisions regarding the cleanup of specific Superfund sites. The system is intended to provide repositories of or access to a variety of programmatic information regarding site management, cost recovery, site financial resources, enforcement actions, and supporting documentation. The information is collected to ensure that supporting documentation for activities and decisions related to the Superfund site cleanup are well maintained and readily accessible as needed. The program utilizes this information in a variety of ways, including but not limited to research, enforcement, litigation support, responses to congressional and FOIA requests, public participation in the Superfund process, electronic archiving, cost recovery, disaster recovery, and support of the program and Agency missions.

Records protected under the Privacy Act are subject to Agency-wide security requirements governing all database systems at EPA. Privacy is maintained by limiting access to the database containing confidential business and personal information. Access to the database is limited to individuals designated as System Administrators, Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), Data Sponsors, On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), Information Management Coordinators (IMCs), Budget Coordinators (BCs), Regional Attorneys, Regional Managers, Data Entry Support Staff, Support Contractors, and any other staff with assigned data management responsibilities.

Physical access to the building (EPA's National Computer Center (NCC) at Research Triangle Park, NC) is limited to EPA employees and their contractors with key cards. The building is equipped with cameras and sign-in sheets are utilized to monitor employee activities, traffic flow, and access to the computer room where the file servers and storage networks are located.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

G&K Services, Inc. owns and operates G&K Services, Inc.—Green Bay, which is located within the exterior boundaries of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin's tribal reservation in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Emission units at the source consist of nine industrial washers, six natural gas-fired industrial dryers, a natural gas-fired boiler, a natural gas-fired steam tunnel, and other processes. These emission units and other processes are used to process, clean, and recondition soiled industrial towels.

On February 13, 2013, G&K Services, Inc. contacted EPA Region 5 to discuss the permitting status of G&K Services, Inc.—Green Bay, since a question had arisen regarding the identity of the proper permitting authority. Prior to the issuance of this permit, G&K Services, Inc.—Green Bay operated according to the requirements of an operating permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). However, on December 4, 2001, EPA granted full approval of Wisconsin's title V operating permit program (see 66 FR 62951). In its action, EPA specifically exempted Indian country from the approval of Wisconsin's title V operating permit program (id. at 62953). Since the source is located within the exterior boundaries of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin's tribal reservation and EPA did not grant WDNR the authority to issue title V operating permits to sources located in Indian country, EPA determined that we are the permitting authority for this source.

On June 14, 2013, G&K Services, Inc. submitted an application for an initial operating permit pursuant to the requirements of the Federal operating permit program codified at 40 CFR part 71. On July 17, 2013, G&K Services, Inc. submitted additional information to supplement its permit application. On July 25, 2013, EPA determined that the application was complete pursuant to 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2).

On December 5, 2014, EPA issued a draft permit for a 30-day public comment period pursuant to 40 CFR 71.11(d). The public comment period ended on January 5, 2015. During the public comment period, EPA received comments from G&K Services, Inc. requesting clarification of permit terms. EPA responded to all comments as required by 40 CFR 71.11(j).

EPA issued the final permit for G&K Services, Inc.—Green Bay, permit number V-ON-5500900021-2014-01, on March 23, 2015. Pursuant to 40 CFR 71.11(i)(2), the final permit becomes effective on April 22, 2015, unless review is requested pursuant to 40 CFR 71.11(i)(1).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 71.11(l), any person who filed comments on the draft permit may petition the Environmental Appeals Board for administrative review of any condition of the permit decision. Any person who failed to file comments may petition for administrative review of the permit only on changes from the draft to the final permit or to the extent that new grounds for a petition have arisen that were not reasonably foreseeable during the public comment period on the draft permit. The 30-day period during which a person may seek review under 40 CFR 71.11(l) began on March 25, 2015, the date on which EPA notified G&K Services, Inc. of issuance of the permit.

EPA is notifying the public of the issuance of a title V operating permit, permit number V-ON-5500900021-2014-01, issued on March 23, 2015, to G&K Services, Inc. for its source in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The permit becomes effective on April 22, 2015, unless review is requested pursuant to 40 CFR 71.11(i)(1).

Petition: To receive a copy of the petition, please contact Moses Chang at (212) 637-3867 or email at [email protected].

New York proposes to establish a vessel waste No Discharge Zone (NDZ) covering the approximately 150 square miles of connected waters and tributaries of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River.

New York's petition contains a certification by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) that the protection and enhancement of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake, the Seneca River and the navigable tributaries thereto, requires greater environmental protection than the applicable Federal standards provide. The certification states that Cayuga Lake and Seneca Lake are water bodies of unique ecological, economic and public health significance, as well as drinking water sources. Pathogens and chemicals contained in the currently-lawful effluent from discharging marine sanitation devices (MSDs) threaten public health and the environment and contravene the State's ongoing efforts to control point and non-point source pollution from municipal discharges, combined sewer overflows and stormwater runoff. A NDZ designation covering the waters of each lake represents one component of a comprehensive approach to water quality management. Protecting Cayuga Lake and Seneca Lake warrants this greater level of environmental protection in order to maintain excellent water quality, prevent future degradation and speed the recovery of impaired segments. Seneca Lake is the largest and deepest of all the Finger Lakes at 4.2 trillion gallons in volume and 291 feet in average depth. The maximum depth of the lake is 618 feet. The Seneca Lake Watershed comprises 14% of the greater Oswego River Watershed. While the water quality of the lake is generally good, the lake is on the NYSDEC Priority Waterbody List (PWL) as a Water with Minor Impacts. This means that the current uses of the lake are fully supported but some negative water quality impacts have been observed and action must be taken to ensure that the water will continue to support its uses in the future. Pollutants that negatively impact the lake include pathogens and oxygen demand from the Watkins Glen wastewater treatment plant and general lakeside activities as well as sediment from eroding stream banks and steep slopes surrounding the lake. As part of its broader efforts to protect and enhance the water quality of Seneca Lake, New York seeks to eliminate the discharge of pathogens and chemicals from all vessels using the lake.

Cayuga Lake has a maximum depth of 435 feet and a volume of about 2.5 trillion gallons. The Cayuga Lake Watershed comprises 15% of the greater Oswego River Watershed. While the water quality of Cayuga Lake is generally good, the northern to mid-south portions of the lake are on the NYSDEC Priority Waterbody List (PWL) as Threatened Segments because of the lake's significant value as a drinking water resource. As part of its broader effort to preserve and enhance water quality to maintain the lake's use as drinking waters with minimal required treatment, New York seeks to eliminate the discharge of pathogens and chemicals from all vessels using the lake.

In determining whether adequate facilities exist for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels using a water body, EPA relies on the “Clean Vessel Act: Pumpout Station and Dump Station Technical Guidelines,” (59 FR 11290, March 10, 1994) published by the Department of the Interior (DOI), which provides that at least one pumpout station should be provided for every 300 to 600 boats over 16 feet in length. The guidance also provides that approximately 20% of boats between 16 and 26 feet, 50% of boats between 26 and 40 feet and all vessels over 40 feet in length can be assumed to have an installed toilet with some type of MSD. Vessels below 16 feet in length are generally presumed not to have an MSD onboard.

In support of its petition, New York provided information on the vessel population in the proposed NDZ. The population of recreational vessels using Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River was estimated based on the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation's 2012 Boating Report (OPRHP Report) for the counties of Cayuga, Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Stueben, Tompkins and Yates, which surround the lakes. While it is very unlikely that every single vessel registered in these counties will operate in the proposed NDZ simultaneously, the state took a conservative approach and considered all boats registered in these counties as part of the overall recreational vessel population of the proposed NDZ. According to the OPRHP Report, in the seven counties surrounding the proposed NDZ, there are 16,740 registered boats between 16 and 25 feet long, 1161 boats between 26 and 40 feet long and 71 boats over 40 feet long. Applying the percentages in the DOI guidance yields an estimate of 3,967 recreational vessels with MSDs that operate in the proposed NDZ.

The population of commercial vessels using Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River was estimated based on information provided by the Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Board and the Finger Lakes Institute as well as information obtained from the Internet.

According to these sources, the majority of commercial vessels operating in the proposed NDZ are chartered fishing boats. There are at least 18 charter services that operate primarily in Seneca Lake and Cayuga Lake, as well as 11 cruise companies. These companies own anywhere from one to three vessels. A conservative assumption of 40 companies (18 charter companies + 11 cruise companies + 11 unlisted business) with 3 vessels each yields a total of 120 commercial vessels that operate in the proposed NDZ. As an additional conservative assumption, all 120 commercial vessels are assumed to have MSDs. Therefore, there are approximately 4,090 vessels with MSDs operating in the proposed NDZ.

In further support of its petition, New York provided information on the number of pumpout facilities available to the recreational and commercial vessels in the proposed NDZ. The federal Clean Vessel Act of 1992 made grants available to states for construction, replacement and renovation of recreational vessel pumpouts. New York applied for the first federal grant in 1994 and initiated a statewide program known as the Clean Vessel Assistance Program (CVAP), managed and administered by New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) that has helped establish and support 17 pumpout facilities serving Seneca Lake and Cayuga Lake, of which two are pumpout boats and 15 are dockside pumpouts. EPA independently updated and verified these pumpout information and concluded that two pumpout boats are out of operation and only 14 dockside pumpouts are operational. An additional 3 pumpout facilities are available to the public but are not funded through CVAP. All these current 17 pumpout (14 CVAP + 3 non-CVAP pumpouts = 17 pumpouts) facilities either discharge to a holding tank, to a municipal wastewater treatment plant or to an on-site septic system.

While some commercial shipping vessels are so large as to require special docking accommodations or mobile pumpouts to access pumpout services, the commercial vessels that operate in the proposed NDZ are all small enough to use the same pumpouts that the recreational vessels use. Therefore, the total number of pumpout facilities available for use by the vessels that operate in the proposed NDZ is 17. A list of pumpout facilities, phone numbers, locations, hours of operation, water depth and fees is provided below:

Based on a total vessel population of 4,090 and 17 currently available pumpout facilities, the ratio of boats to pumpouts is 241:1, which means there are significantly more pumpouts than the recommended range of 300-600:1. Also, the pumpouts are evenly distributed between the lakes (7 in Cayuga Lake and 10 in Seneca Lake). Therefore, EPA proposes to issue a determination that adequate pumpout facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage for all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River.

A 30-day period for public comment has been opened on this matter and EPA invites any comments relevant to its proposed determination. If, after the public comment period ends, EPA makes a final determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake and the Seneca River, the State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters.

A healthcare provider may enter into an agreement with Medicare to participate in the program as an outpatient physical therapy and speech language pathology (OPT) provided certain requirements are met. Section 1861(p)(4) of the Social Security Act (the Act), establish distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as an OPT. Regulations concerning Medicare provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to the survey and certification for Medicare participation of providers and certain types of suppliers are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 485, subpart H specify the specific conditions that a provider must meet to participate in the Medicare program as an OPT.

Generally, to enter into a Medicare provider agreement, a facility must first be certified by a State Survey Agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 485, subpart H of our Medicare regulations. Thereafter, the OPT is subject to periodic surveys by a State Survey Agency to determine whether it continues to meet these conditions. However, there is an alternative to certification surveys by state agencies. Accreditation by a national Medicare accreditation program approved by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) may substitute for both initial and ongoing state agency review.

Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) finds that accreditation of a provider entity by an approved national accreditation organization meets or exceeds all applicable Medicare conditions or requirements, we may “deem” the provider entity to be in compliance. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

Part 488, subpart A, implements the provisions of section 1865 of the Act and requires that a national accrediting organization applying for approval of its Medicare accreditation program must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that its accredited provider entities meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at §§ 488.4 and 488.8(d)(3). The regulations at § 488.8(d)(3) require an accrediting organization to reapply for continued approval of its Medicare accreditation program every 6 years or sooner as determined by the CMS. The American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities (AAAASF's) current term of approval as a Medicare accreditation program for OPTs expires April 22, 2015.

Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides us 210 days after the date of receipt of a complete application, with any documentation necessary to make the determination, to complete our survey activities and application process. Within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, we must publish a notice that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the nature of the request, and provide at least a 30-day public comment period. At the end of the 210-day period, we must publish a notice announcing our approval or denial of an application.

On November 21, 2014, we published a proposed notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 69481) entitled “Application from the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities for Continued Approval of its Accreditation Program for Organizations that Provide Outpatient Physical Therapy and Speech Language Pathology Services” announcing AAAASF's request for continued approval of its Medicare OPT accreditation program. In that notice, we detailed our evaluation criteria. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and in our regulations at § 488.4 and § 488.8, we conducted a review of AAAASF's Medicare OPT accreditation application in accordance with the criteria specified by our regulations, which include, but are not limited to the following:

• An onsite administrative review of AAAASF's: (1) Corporate policies; (2) financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys; (3) procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its OPT surveyors; (4) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited OPTs; and (5) survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.

• The comparison of AAAASF's Medicare accreditation program standards to our current Medicare OPT Conditions of Participation (CoPs).

• A documentation review of AAAASF's survey process to:

++ Determine the composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and AAAASF's ability to provide continuing surveyor training.

++ Compare AAAASF's processes to those we require of State Survey Agencies, including periodic resurvey and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited OPTs.

++ Evaluate AAAASF's procedures for monitoring OPTs it has found to be out of compliance with AAAASF's program requirements. (This pertains only to monitoring procedures when AAAASF identifies non-compliance. If noncompliance is identified by a State Survey Agency through a validation survey, the State Survey Agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.7(d).

++ Assess AAAASF's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed OPT and respond to the OPT's plan of correction in a timely manner.

++ Establish AAAASF's ability to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

++ Determine the adequacy of AAAASF's staff and other resources.

++ Confirm AAAASF's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.

++ Confirm AAAASF's policies with respect to surveys being unannounced.

++ Obtain AAAASF's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.

In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the November 21, 2014 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether AAAASF's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare CoPs for OPTs. We received no public comments in response to our proposed notice.

We compared AAAASF's OPT accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare CoPs of part 485, subpart H and the survey and certification process requirements of parts 488 and 489. Our review and evaluation of AAAASF's OPT application, which were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, AAAASF has completed revising its standards and certification processes in order to meet the requirements at:

• Section 488.4(a)(3)(ii), to ensure surveyors are provided the necessary tools to evaluate compliance with the Medicare conditions.

• Section 488.4(a)(3)(iii), to ensure the accreditation review process and accreditation decision making process meets the Medicare requirements, the following was modified:

++ Policy related to how AAAASF verifies an organization without a CMS certification number (CCN) seeking an initial survey has completed the Medicare enrollment application prior to receiving an accreditation survey;

++ Policy for establishing an effective date for renewal surveys;

++ Policy for withdrawals and terminations; and

++ Guidance and instructions on how plans of correction are handled when they are not adequate.

• Section 488.4(a)(6), to address the requirement where complaints that do not rise to the level of requiring an onsite investigation are tracked and trended for potential focus areas during the next onsite survey.

• Section 488.9, to address the number of medical records reviews that must be completed onsite.

• Section 488.26(b), to ensure survey reports contain the appropriate level of deficiency (that is, standard versus condition).

• Section 488.28(a), to ensure plans of correction correct the cited deficiencies, include thresholds of compliance and are sent timely.

Based on our review and observations described in section III of this final notice, we approve AAAASF as a national accreditation organization for OPTs that request participation in the Medicare program, effective April 22, 2015 through April 22, 2019.

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product RAVICTI (glycerol phenylbutyrate). RAVICTI is indicated for use as a nitrogen-binding agent for chronic management of adult and pediatric patients 2 years of age or older with urea cycle disorders that cannot be managed by dietary protein restriction and/or amino acid supplementation alone. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for RAVICTI (U.S. Patent No. 5,968,979) from Hyperion Therapeutics, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated May 2, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of RAVICTI represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for RAVICTI is 2,126 days. Of this time, 1,719 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 407 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: April 10, 2007. The applicant claims April 8, 2006, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was April 10, 2007, when the IND was removed from clinical hold.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December 23, 2011. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for RAVICTI (NDA 203284) was submitted on December 23, 2011.

3. The date the application was approved: February 1, 2013. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 203284 was approved on February 1, 2013.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,450 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by June 16, 2015. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by October 14, 2015. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written or electronic petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. If you submit a written petition, two copies are required. A petition submitted electronically must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

In many instances, these resources allow for the timely evaluation of drug-related adverse events since data on healthcare utilized by a large number of individuals are readily available. However, because these data are typically collected for administrative purposes, information on important health factors necessary to evaluate drug-outcome relationship may be absent or incomplete in these data sources. Examples include tobacco/smoking use and history, alcohol consumption, weight and height, patient and family medical history, or use of over-the-counter medications. Incomplete capture or the absence of this information can result in biased or uncertain estimates for the drug-outcome relationship of interest leading to inadequate evaluation of the safety profile of prescription drug products.

Webcast: Please be advised that as soon as possible after a Webcast of the public workshop is available, it will be accessible at: http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RegulatoryScience/ucm429136.htm.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collections. There is one ICR for each Collection.

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICRs referred to in this Notice.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2015-0005], and must be received by May 18, 2015. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the “Privacy Act” paragraph below.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2015-0005]; indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or hand delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and type “USCG-2015-0005” in the “Search” box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and will address them accordingly.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Search” box insert “USCG-2015-0005” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.