Federal Register Vol. 81, No.118,

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Discuss Environmental Education; and

2. Effectively communicate future land management plan activities.

The meeting is open to the public. Board discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Board members. Written comments are invited and should be sent to Tina Tilley, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211; and must be received by July 5, 2016, in order for copies to be provided to the members for this meeting. Board members will review written comments received, and at their request, oral clarification may be requested for a future meeting.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

Background

On December 7, 2015, the Department published its Preliminary Results. On February 11, 2016, the Golden Dragon Group Companies 3 submitted a case brief and on February 16, 2016, Cerro Flow Products, LLC, Wieland Copper Products, LLC, Mueller Copper Tube Products Inc., and Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) submitted a rebuttal brief.4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 351.104(a)(2)(ii), on March 28, 2016, the Department rejected the Golden Dragon Group Companies' case brief because it contained untimely filed new factual information.5 On March 29, 2016, the Golden Dragon Group Companies resubmitted a redacted version of this case brief.6

As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government.7 All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four days. Additionally, on March 23, 2016, the Department extended the time period for issuing the final results of this review by 60 days.8 The revised deadline for these final results of review is June 10, 2016.

The merchandise subject to the order is seamless refined copper pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090. Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS item numbers 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.9

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to 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://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made the following revisions to the margin calculations for the GD Single Entity: 10

• We revised a deduction for unrefunded VAT from the calculation of net U.S. price.

• We revised the valuation of the by-product offset for recycled copper.

• We revised the distance used in our calculation of inland freight expenses using record information.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), the Department verified information provided by the Golden Dragon Group Companies.11 The Department conducted the verification using standard verification procedures including the examination of relevant records and the selection and review of original documentation containing relevant information. The results of the verification are outlined in the public version of the verification reports. The verification reports are on file electronically via ACCESS.

We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR:

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.

For the companies identified above, which comprise the GD Single Entity, the weighted-average dumping margin is zero. Therefore, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries by the companies that comprise the GD Single Entity without regard to antidumping duties.12 For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate.

For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters identified above, the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a previously completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 60.85 percent); and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed regarding these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

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

This notice also serves as a 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, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

Background: Consistent with the guidelines in OMB Circular A-25, federal agencies are responsible for conducting a biennial review of all programs to determine the types of activities subject to user fees and the basis upon which user fees are to be set. The U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), recently completed a biennial review and will be notifying the public, on a rolling basis, on the various ITA user fee adjustments.

In addition to OMB Circular A-25, the NTTO follows OMB Circular A-130, which mandates that federal agencies develop and maintain a comprehensive set of information management policies for use across the government, and to promote the application of information technology to improve the use and dissemination of information in the operation of Federal programs. The role of NTTO is to enhance the international competitiveness of the U.S. travel and tourism industry and increase its exports, thereby creating U.S. employment and economic growth. The primary functions of the NTTO are: (1) Management of the travel and tourism statistical system for assessing the economic contribution of the industry and providing the sole source for characteristic statistics on international travel to and from the United States; (2) design and administration of export expansion activities; (3) development and management of tourism policy, strategy and advocacy; and, (4) technical assistance for expanding this key export (international tourism) and assisting in domestic economic development. There are three main research programs in which the public may obtain additional data on the international travelers to and from the United States in addition to free information posted to the NTTO Web site. The revised 2016 fees are for the monthly, quarterly or annual data from the APIS/I-92 Program, the I-94 International Arrivals Program, and the annual custom reports, data tables or files from the Survey of International Air Travelers Program.

The APIS/I-92 program is a joint effort between the Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the NTTO to provide international air traffic statistics data to the government and the travel industry. The system is a source of data on all international flights to and from the United States, including flights with fewer than 10 passengers. It reports the total volume of air traffic and various subsets of traffic. A differentiating feature of the I-92 is that the I-92 reports the number of U.S. citizens vs. “all other citizens.” The information collected from this program has been based upon the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) since July 2010. All carriers serving the United States must transmit APIS data (from their automated flight manifests) to CBP for each flight coming to or departing from the United States. Canada also is included in this program. The information collected provides non-stop point-to-point air traffic totals between the United States and all other countries and between U.S. and foreign airports. This information is further subset by the number of passengers on U.S. flag or foreign flag carriers. In addition, there is a breakout of scheduled or charter flight passengers. In the monthly, quarterly and annual I-92 reports, there are four sets of tables. The first three sets have an arrivals portion (Ia, IIa, and IIIa), as well as a departures section (Id, IId, and IIId). The fourth table is a summary of traffic by flag of carrier. To learn more about this program, go to: http://travel.trade.gov/research/programs/i92/index.asp. The current 2016 and historical fees (1990-2015) for this program can be found at: http://travel.trade.gov/research/reports/i92/index.asp. Fees for APIS/I-92 products include a 5 percent fee increase between 2015 and 2016.

The I-94 International Arrivals Program is a core part of the U.S. travel and tourism statistical system. This program provides the U.S. government and the public with the official U.S. monthly and annual overseas visitor arrivals to the United States along with select Mexican and Canadian visitor statistics. The NTTO manages the program in cooperation with the CBP. The program collects and reports overseas non-U.S. resident visitor arrivals to the United States. U.S. government data consists of the DHS I-94 data, which non-U.S. citizens from overseas and Mexico must complete to enter the United States. All visitation data is processed by residency (world region and country), for total arrivals, type of visa, mode of transportation, age of traveler, address (state level only) while in the United States port of entry, and select percentage change comparisons year-over-year. The information is presented in a report entitled the Summary of International Travel to the United States with 35 tables including the categories above. NTTO publishes arrivals data to its Web site on a monthly basis, and reports and custom reports or tables are available on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis. More information about this program is available at http://travel.trade.gov/research/programs/i94/index.asp. The current 2016 and historical fees (1992-2015) for this program can be found at: http://travel.trade.gov/research/reports/i94/index.html. Fees for I-94 products include a 5 percent fee increase between 2015 and 2016.

The Survey of International Air Travelers Program is a primary research program which gathers statistical data about air passenger travelers in U.S.—overseas and Mexican air markets (Canada is excluded). The program also serves as the cornerstone for NTTO's efforts to assist U.S. businesses to improve their competitiveness and effectiveness in the international travel market. The Survey is conducted on selected flights which have departed, or are about to depart, from the major U.S. international gateway airports. The Survey is administered either aboard flights or in the airport gate area, of the over 90 participating airlines (foreign and U.S.) departing 26 U.S. international gateways. The Survey data is “weighted” to census data. For example, non-resident inbound survey responses are weighted to the “100%” population of DHS I-94 arrival records to adjust for over and under sampling. Resident outbound data is weighted based on DHS I-92 U.S. departure data. Data are available on a quarterly and annual basis for either non-resident inbound or resident outbound. It can be delivered in a standard national report format or as a custom report, data table, or excel. Data files are also available. To learn more about this program, go to: http://travel.trade.gov/research/programs/ifs/index.asp. The current 2016 and historical fees (1983-2015) for this program can be found at: http://travel.trade.gov/research/reports/ifs/index.asp. When viewing the current fee structure for the SIAT reports, the tables will show there is no fee increase for the vast majority of the standard published reports and their corresponding Excel tables as there has not been for the last five years. The only reports or data for which the NTTO is revising the fees are shown below; the past fees are accessible through the above links.

Fee Schedule increases for the APIS/I-92 program, the I-94 International Arrivals Program and the Survey of International Air Travelers (SIAT) Program are shown in the tables below. All fees shown are 5 percent greater in 2016 than in 2015. For the I-94 program, the NTTO is eliminating the print files and will only provide a PDF and Excel file to save costs and provide an Excel version of the reports. For the SIAT, a majority of the reports offered will see no fee increase between 2015 and 2016. The custom reports, data tables and files see a 5 percent fee increase in 2016.

ITA collects, retains, and expends user fees pursuant to delegated authority under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act as authorized in its annual appropriations acts. For each program, NTTO has a set of subscribers who have been using this data, some for decades. Most rely upon this data as the only federal source to define the international travel market to this country and to their destination or for their sector.

Fees are set taking into account the cost of providing this data. Most of the NTTO research is implemented using fixed price contracts. Within the contracts are built-in cost adjustments. The NTTO considers program cost changes due to the needed level of timeliness and other quality of service considerations as well as needed or actual improvements such as new report formats, more travelers surveyed, or other enhancements to the research data provided. The NTTO also generally considers the current demand for each program by comparing changes from one year to the next before setting fees.

In adjusting its current fees, NTTO also considered the purchasing constraints experienced by current or potential subscribers (such as limits to purchase by credit card, or sole source/open bid requirements) and factored in the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (used to determine rate of inflation).

In the analysis of these fees, it was determined that the services provided offer special benefits to an identifiable recipient beyond those that accrue to the general public. The NTTO calculated the actual cost of providing its data services in order to provide a basis for setting each fee. Actual cost incorporates direct and indirect costs (including operations and maintenance), overhead, and charges for the use of capital facilities. NTTO also took into account additional factors when pricing goods and services, including adequacy of cost recovery, affordability, available efficiencies, inflation, pricing history, fee elasticity considerations (including client ability to pay for NTTO data), and service delivery alternatives.

Based on the information provided above, the NTTO believes its revised fees are consistent with the objective of OMB Circular A-25 to “promote efficient allocation of the nation's resources by establishing charges for special benefits provided to the recipient that are at least as great as the cost to the U.S. Government of providing the special benefits . . .” OMB Circular A-25(5)(b).

Background

The Department published the Preliminary Results on December 7, 2015.2 As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final results of this review was April 11, 2016.3 On April 4, 2016, the Department extended the deadline in this proceeding by 30 days to May 11, 2016.4 On May 4, 2016, the Department extended the deadline in this proceeding by another 30 days to June 10, 2016.5

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309, we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. QTF, Petitioners and Xinboda all submitted timely-filed case briefs, pursuant to our regulations.6 Additionally, Petitioners and Xinboda submitted timely-filed rebuttal briefs.7 Finally, on March 3, 2016, the Department held a public hearing where counsel for QTF, Xinboda and Petitioners presented arguments in their case and rebuttal briefs.

The merchandise covered by the order includes all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves. Fresh garlic that are subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0005, 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, 2005.99.9700. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope of this order, please see “Scope of the Order” in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.8

In the Preliminary Results, we stated our intention to preliminarily rescind this administrative review with respect to Jinxiang Kaihua Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. (Kaihua), because we found its POR sales to not be bona fide in the concurrent new shipper review.9 We received no comments on our intent to rescind the review of Kaihua for the Final Results. Therefore, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Kaihua.

We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review in the I&D Memo. Appendix I provides a list of the issues which parties raised. The I&D Memo is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as 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 in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the I&D Memo can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed I&D Memo and the electronic versions of the I&D Memo are identical in content.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the I&D Memo, we revised the margin calculation for Xinboda. Accordingly, for the Final Results, the Department has also updated the margin to be assigned to companies eligible for a separate rate but not selected for individual examination; this margin is the same as Xinboda's margin. The Calculation Memo for Xinboda's Final Results and the Surrogate Values Memo contain further explanation of our changes to Xinboda's factors of production.10 For a list of all issues addressed in these Final Results, please refer to Appendix I accompanying this notice.

In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily determined that the companies listed in Appendix III timely filed “no shipment” certifications and did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. Consistent with the Department's assessment practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, we completed the review with respect to the companies listed in Appendix III. Based on the certifications submitted by the aforementioned companies, and the fact that CBP provided no evidence to contradict the claims by the aforementioned companies of no shipments, we continue to determine that these companies did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. As noted in the “Assessment Rates” section below, the Department intends to issue appropriate instructions to CBP for the companies listed below based on the final results of this review.

As discussed in the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily determined 38 companies to be part of the PRC-wide entity.11 In addition to the two mandatory respondents which failed to cooperate to the best of their ability to comply with the Department's requests for information, there were 36 companies for which a review was requested, and not withdrawn, which did not file a separate rate application or certification, and did not file a no shipments certification. Accordingly, the Department determined that these companies are part of the PRC-wide entity.

As discussed in detail in the I&D Memo, the Department continues to find Golden Bird and QTF to be part of the PRC-wide entity. QTF commented on our preliminary decision that it is part of the PRC-wide entity, and we have addressed QTF's comments in the I&D Memo.

Thus, for these final results, the Department continues to find all 38 companies to be part of the PRC-wide entity. A full list of companies determined to be part of the PRC-wide entity can be found in Appendix II.

In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that non-selected companies Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd., Jining Maycarrier Import & Export Co, Ltd., Jining Shunchang Import & Export Co., Ltd., Jinxiang Feiteng Import & Export Co., Ltd., Jinxiang Guiha Food Co., Ltd., Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd., Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Yuting Foodstuff Co., Ltd., Jining Shengtai Vegetables & Fruits Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd., Weifang Hongqiao International Logistics Co., Ltd., and Yantai Jinyan Trading Inc. demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate.12 No party has placed any evidence on the record of this review to contradict that finding. Therefore, we continue to find that these companies are eligible for a separate rate.

The separate rate for non-selected companies is normally the amount equal to the weighted average of the calculated weighted-average dumping margins established for mandatory respondents, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely on adverse facts available.13 Here, the only individually-examined respondent for which the Department has determined a weighted-average margin is Xinboda. As that margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, the Department determines that Xinboda's rate will be assigned to the non-selected separate rate recipients.

The weighted-average dumping margins for the administrative review are as follows:

In addition, the Department continues to find that the companies identified in Appendix II are part of the PRC-wide entity.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.

Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).14 Where the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.15 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.16 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.17 We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate.

Pursuant to the Department's assessment practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide entity rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter 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 entity rate.18

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of $4.71 per kilogram; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

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

This notice also serves as a 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), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

Background

On February 16, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an antidumping duty investigation on certain amorphous silica fabric from the People's Republic of China.1 The notice of initiation stated that the Department, in accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), would issue its preliminary determination for this investigation, unless postponed, no later than 140 days after the date of the initiation. The deadline for the preliminary determination of this antidumping duty investigation is currently July 5, 2016.

Section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act permits the Department to postpone the time limit for the preliminary determination if it receives a timely request from the petitioner for postponement. The Department may postpone the preliminary determination under section 733(c)(1) of the Act until no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiates an investigation.

On June 1, 2016, Auburn Manufacturing, Inc. (the Petitioner) submitted a timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation.2 The petitioner stated that a postponement is necessary for the Department to conduct a complete and thorough analysis. The petitioner further stated that a postponement is needed to allow time to address the various deficiencies in the questionnaire responses submitted in this case. The petitioner submitted its request more than 25 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.3

For the reasons stated above, and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the petitioner's request, the Department is postponing the preliminary determination in this investigation in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) by 50 days until August 24, 2016.

The deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Threatened, naturally and artificially produced in Puget Sound.

Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha): Threatened, naturally and artificially produced in Puget Sound.

Chum salmon (O. keta): Threatened, naturally and artificially produced Hood Canal summer-run.

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus): Threatened Puget Sound/Washington Coast.

The WDFW, the Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Indian Tribe, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, have jointly submitted to NMFS HGMPs for 11 hatchery programs in the Nooksack River Basin in Washington State. The HGMPs were updated and submitted to NMFS from 2013 to 2015, pursuant to limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule for salmon and steelhead. The hatchery programs include releases of ESA-listed Chinook salmon, and non-listed coho, pink, and fall-run chum salmon into the Nooksack River Basin.

NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct environmental analyses of their proposed major actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment. NMFS's action of determining that the co-managers' HGMPs meet criteria under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule for salmon and steelhead promulgated under the ESA, is a major Federal action subject to environmental review under NEPA. Therefore, NMFS is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives, recommendations for relevant analysis methods, and information associated with impacts of the alternatives to the resources listed below or other relevant resources.

NMFS will perform an environmental review of the HGMPs and prepare an EIS that will identify potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the following resources that may be affected by the Proposed Action or its alternatives:

NMFS will rigorously explore and objectively evaluate a full range of reasonable alternatives in the EIS, including the Proposed Action and a no-action alternative. Other alternatives may include a decreased production alternative.

For all potentially significant impacts, the EIS will identify measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts, where feasible.

NMFS provides this notice to: (1) Advise other agencies and the public of its plans to analyze effects related to the action, and (2) obtain suggestions and information that may be useful to the scope of issues and the full range of alternatives to include in the EIS.

NMFS invites comment from all interested parties to ensure that the full range of issues related to the 11 salmon HGMPs is identified. Comments should be as specific as possible.

Written comments concerning the Proposed Action and the environmental review should be directed to NMFS as described above (see ADDRESSES). All comments and materials received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public.

The environmental review of the 11 salmon HGMPs in the Nooksack River Basin of Washington State will be conducted in accordance with requirements of the NEPA of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), other appropriate Federal laws and regulations, and policies and procedures of NMFS for compliance with those regulations. This notice is being furnished in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7 to obtain suggestions and information from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS.

The Department of the Army's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/. The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on May 27, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4 of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” revised November 28, 2000 (December 12, 2000 65 FR 77677).

The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The USMA BoV provides independent advice and recommendations to the President of the United States on matters related to morale, discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and any other matters relating to the Academy that the Board decides to consider.

Purpose of the Meeting: This is the 2016 Summer Meeting of the USMA BoV. Members of the Board will be provided updates on Academy issues.

Proposed Agenda: The Board Chair will discuss the following topics: Proposed change to “Rules of the USMA Board of Visitors;” Key Events; Second Semester Highlights; Class of 2020; Summer Military Program Highlights; Women's Boxing; Intellectual Capital Update; SHARP (Sexual Harassment and Assault Response and Prevention) Update; Athletic Department Restructure Update; USMA Construction Update; and Upcoming Events.

Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first to arrive basis. Attendees are requested to submit their name, affiliation, and daytime phone number seven business days prior to the meeting to Mrs. Ghostlaw, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the committee during the meeting, and members of the public attending the committee meeting will not be permitted to present questions from the floor or speak to any issue under consideration by the committee. Because the committee meeting will be held in a Federal Government facility on a military post, security screening is required. A government photo ID is required to enter post. Please note that security and gate guards have the right to inspect vehicles and persons seeking to enter and exit the installation. The United States Military Academy, Jefferson Hall, is fully handicap accessible. Wheelchair access is available at the south entrance of the building. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Mrs. Ghostlaw, the committee's Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the committee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the committee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mrs. Ghostlaw, the committee Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mrs. Ghostlaw, the committee Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Official at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the committee. The Designated Federal Official will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the committee Chairperson and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the committee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the committee until its next meeting.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the committee during the meeting. However, the committee Designated Federal Official and Chairperson may choose to invite certain submitters to present their comments verbally during the open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the committee Chairperson, may allot a specific amount of time for submitters to present their comments verbally.

This committee's charter is being renewed 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). The charter and contact information for the Panel's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

The Panel will conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related offenses since the amendments made to the UCMJ by section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 for the purpose of developing recommendations for improvements to such proceedings. The Panel shall consist of five members, two of whom must have served on the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel. Panel members will be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee members. Each member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official Panel-related travel and per diem, members serve without compensation. The DoD, as necessary and consistent with the Panel's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Panel, and all subcommittees must operate under the provisions of FACA and the Government in the Sunshine Act. Subcommittees will not work independently of the Panel and must report all recommendations and advice solely to the Panel for full 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 Panel. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees. The Panel's DFO, pursuant to DoD policy, must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and must be in attendance for the duration of each and every Panel/subcommittee meeting. The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Panel membership about the Panel's mission and functions. Such statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned Panel meetings. All written statements must be submitted to the Panel's DFO who will ensure the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

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 minimizes 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: Part D Discretionary Grant Application—Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1894-0001).

OMB Control Number: 1820-0028.

Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 800.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20,000.

Abstract: Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act discretionary grants are authorized to support technology, State personnel development, personnel preparation, parent training and information, and technical assistance activities. This grant application provides the forms and information necessary for applicants to submit an application for funding, and information for use by technical reviewers to determine the quality of the application.

The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club seeking to compel the Administrator to take actions under CAA section 505(b)(2). Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would agree to sign its response granting or denying the petition filed by Sierra regarding the TVA's Bull Run Fossil Plant, located in Clinton, Tennessee, pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the CAA, on or before November 10, 2016.

Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would expeditiously deliver notice of EPA's response to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication following signature of such response. In addition, the proposed consent decree outlines the procedure for the Plaintiffs to request costs of litigation, including attorney fees.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0336) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (“OEI”) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search.”

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (“CBI”), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Board proposes to modify system of records BGFRS-1 (FRB-Recruiting and Placement Records). The Board is replacing an electronic system that it uses to assist Board staff in identifying, tracking, screening, and selecting individuals for positions at the Board. In connection with the implementation, the Board is amending the system of records to update the location and manager, the categories of records, the access controls, the retention period, and the record source categories, and is also identifying the authority more specifically. The Board is not adding or deleting any routine uses or changing the exemptions claimed for this system of records.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), a report of this system of records is being filed with the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.

By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Secretary of the Board under delegated authority.

A. Purpose

A notice was published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 20638 on April 8, 2016. No comments were received. The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.

This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance.

Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study.

Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results. The Digital Government Strategy released by the White House in May, 2012 drives agencies to have a more customer-centric focus. Because of this, GSA anticipates an increase in requests to use this generic clearance, as the plan states that: A customer-centric principle charges us to do several things: Conduct research to understand the customer's business, needs and desires; “make content more broadly available and accessible and present it through multiple channels in a program- and device-agnostic way; make content more accurate and understandable by maintaining plain language and content freshness standards; and offer easy paths for feedback to ensure we continually improve service delivery.

The customer-centric principle holds true whether our customers are internal (e.g., the civilian and military federal workforce in both classified and unclassified environments) or external (e.g., individual citizens, businesses, research organizations, and state, local, and tribal governments).”

Respondents: 160,082.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Total Annual Responses: 160,082.

Hours per response: 3.8386 minutes.

Total Burden hours: 10,241.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0297, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, in all correspondence.

I. Background

Section 907 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L 112-144) (FDASIA) directed the Agency to publish and provide to Congress a report describing the extent to which clinical trial participation and safety and effectiveness data by demographic subgroups, including sex, age, race, and ethnicity, is included in applications submitted to FDA (Ref 1). Section 907 also directed FDA to publish and provide to Congress an action plan outlining recommendations for improving the completeness and quality of analyses of data on demographic subgroups in summaries of product safety and effectiveness data and in labeling; on the inclusion of such data, or the lack of availability of such data, in labeling; and on improving the public availability of such data to patients health care providers and researchers, and to indicate the applicability of these recommendations to the types of medical products addressed in section 907. In the Action Plan, FDA committed to developing this draft guidance as part of the strategy to fulfill FDASIA requirements (Ref. 2).

This guidance outlines FDA's recommendations and expectations for patient enrollment, data analysis, and reporting of age, race, and ethnicity data in medical device clinical studies. Specific objectives of this guidance are to (1) encourage the collection and consideration of age, race, ethnicity, and associated covariates (e.g., body size, biomarkers, bone density) during the study design stage; (2) outline recommended analyses of study subgroup data with a framework for considering demographic data when interpreting overall study outcomes; and (3) specify FDA's recommendations for reporting age, race, and ethnicity-specific information in summaries and labeling for approved or cleared medical devices. FDA believes these recommendations will help improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of data regarding the performance of medical devices within specific age, race, and ethnic groups as well as encourage appropriate enrollment of diverse populations including relevant age, race, and ethnic groups. Proper evaluation and reporting of these data can benefit patients, clinicians, researchers, regulators, and other stakeholders.

This document extends the policy established in FDA's guidance entitled “Evaluation of Sex-Specific Data in Medical Device Clinical Studies” to additional demographic subgroups of age, race, and ethnicity (Ref. 3). Upon finalization of this draft guidance, FDA intends to integrate the content of both guidances into one document.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the evaluation and reporting of age, race, and ethnicity data in medical device clinical studies. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryinformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Evaluation and Reporting of Age, Race, and Ethnicity Data in Medical Device Clinical Studies” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1500026 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

This draft guidance refers to currently approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). These collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 822 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0449; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

The following reference is on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site address, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

Under section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c), FDA must classify devices into one of three regulatory classes: Class I, class II, or class III. FDA classification of a device is determined by the amount of regulation necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (1976 amendments) (Pub. L. 94-295), as amended by the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), devices are to be classified into class I (general controls) if there is information showing that the general controls of the FD&C Act are sufficient to assure safety and effectiveness; into class II (special controls) if general controls, by themselves, are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such assurance; and into class III (premarket approval) if there is insufficient information to support classifying a device into class I or class II and the device is a life sustaining or life supporting device, or is for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health or presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.

Most generic types of devices that were on the market before the date of the 1976 amendments (May 28, 1976) (generally referred to as preamendments devices) have been classified by FDA under the procedures set forth in section 513(c) and (d) of the FD&C Act through the issuance of classification regulations into one of these three regulatory classes. Devices introduced into interstate commerce for the first time on or after May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as postamendments devices), are classified through the premarket notification process under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)). Section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and the implementing regulations, 21 CFR part 807, require persons who intend to market a new device to submit a premarket notification (510(k)) containing information that allows FDA to determine whether the new device is “substantially equivalent” within the meaning of section 513(i) of the FD&C Act to a legally marketed device that does not require premarket approval.

On November 21, 1997, the President signed into law FDAMA (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 206 of FDAMA, in part, added a new section, 510(m), to the FD&C Act. Section 510(m)(1) of the FD&C Act requires FDA, within 60 days after enactment of FDAMA, to publish in the Federal Register a list of each type of class II device that does not require a report under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act further provides that a 510(k) will no longer be required for these devices upon the date of publication of the list in the Federal Register. FDA published that list in the Federal Register of January 21, 1998 (63 FR 3142).

Section 510(m)(2) of the FD&C Act provides that 1 day after date of publication of the list under section 510(m)(1), FDA may exempt a device on its own initiative or upon petition of an interested person if FDA determines that a 510(k) is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. This section requires FDA to publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to exempt a device, or of the petition, and to provide a 30-day comment period. Within 120 days of publication of this document, FDA must publish in the Federal Register its final determination regarding the exemption of the device that was the subject of the notice. If FDA fails to respond to a petition under this section within 180 days of receiving it, the petition shall be deemed granted.

There are a number of factors FDA may consider to determine whether a 510(k) is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of a class II device. These factors are discussed in the guidance the Agency issued on February 19, 1998, entitled “Procedures for Class II Device Exemptions from Premarket Notification, Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff” (Ref. 1).

FDA has received the following petition requesting an exemption from premarket notification for a class II device: Martin O'Connor, Germaine Laboratories, Inc., 11030 Wye Dr., San Antonio, TX 78217, for its Method, Metallic Reduction, Glucose (urinary, non-quantitative) classified under 21 CFR 862.1340. FDA previously announced that it received this petition in a notice entitled “Medical Devices; Exemption from Premarket Notification: Method, Metallic Reduction, Glucose (Urinary, Non-Quantitative) Test System in a Reagent Tablet Format” that appeared in the Federal Register of May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26802). The document was published with the incorrect docket number. This notice includes the correct docket number for the petition.

The following reference is on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site address, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

Agenda: The committee will discuss the efficacy and safety of new drug application (NDA) 201656 (desmopressin), 0.75 mcg/0.1 mL and 1.5 mcg/0.1 mL nasal spray, submitted by Serenity Pharmaceuticals, LLC, for the proposed treatment of adult onset nocturia.

FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before October 4, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before September 26, 2016. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by September 27, 2016.

Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kalyani Bhatt at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.

Information Collection Request Title: Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Cost Reporting Pilot Study.

OMB No.: 0906-xxxx—New.

Abstract: The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (Federal Home Visiting Program), administered by HRSA in partnership with the Administration for Children and Families, supports voluntary, evidence-based home visiting services during pregnancy and to parents with young children up to kindergarten entry. States, Tribal entities, and certain nonprofit organizations are eligible to receive funding from the Federal Home Visiting Program and have the flexibility to tailor the program to serve the specific needs of their communities. Funding recipients may sub award grant funds to organizations, otherwise known as Local Implementing Agencies (LIAs), in order to provide services to eligible families in at-risk communities.

Need and Proposed Use of the Information: This information collection is requested to conduct a pilot study to test the reliability of a standardized cost reporting tool for the provision of evidence-based home visiting services. The information collected will be used to: Test the reliability and feasibility of implementing a proposed set of standardized cost metrics and organizational characteristics across various contexts; estimate preliminary total costs for implementing evidence-based home visiting services, including ranges; and further refine cost metrics and the cost reporting tool based on feedback received through the pilot study. Proposed standard cost metrics have been developed based on a review of the existing literature for measures of home visiting costs, as well as from ongoing discussions with developers of evidence-based home visiting models.

Likely Respondents: Organizations including LIAs providing evidence-based home visiting services through the Federal Home Visiting Program.

Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this Information Collection Request are summarized in the table below.

HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Notice of this meeting via teleconference is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix).

The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee operates under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70112. The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee provides advice, consults with, and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, via the Commandant of the Coast Guard, on matters relating to national maritime security.

The agenda for the July 5, 2016 teleconference is as follows:

(1) Coast Guard Cyber Security Tasking. At their last public meeting, the Committee was asked to provide recommendations concerning a Cyber Security Information Sharing and Analysis Center. A copy of the tasking can be found at http://homeport.uscg.mil/nmsac. The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee will meet via teleconference to receive the report of the working group and provide recommendations. The public will be provided an opportunity to comment prior to any voting on this issue.

(2) Transportation Worker Identification Credential; Next Generation Specifications. At the last public meeting The Committee was tasked with providing recommendations on what the next generation of Transportation Worker Credentials and readers should incorporate. A copy of the tasking can be found at http://homeport.uscg.mil/nmsac. The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee will meet via teleconference to receive the report of the working group and provide recommendations. The public will be provided an opportunity to comment prior to any voting on this issue.

(3) Extremely Hazardous Cargo Strategy. The Committee will receive a tasking to work with the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee in developing an implementation strategy for the Strategy.

During the July 5, 2016 meeting via teleconference, a public comment will be held from approximately 4:45 p.m. to 5 p.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to three minutes. Please note that this public comment period may start before 4:45 p.m. if all other agenda items have been covered and may end before 5 p.m. if all those wishing to comment have done so.

A. Project Background

HUD launched the RBD competition in the summer of 2013 (July 29, 2013, 78 FR 45551) to develop ideas to improve physical, ecological, economic, and social resilience in regions affected by Hurricane Sandy. The competition sought to promote innovation by developing flexible solutions that would increase regional resilience. The Proposed Project was one of the competition's winning concepts; it was developed with the primary goal of reducing flood risk in the Project Area. HUD awarded $150 million to the State of New Jersey for the Proposed Project. The EIS will analyze potential impacts of certain alternatives involving construction of flood risk reduction measures designed to address the impacts of coastal and riverine (fluvial) flooding in the Project Area, stemming from the award-winning RBD design.

The Project Area is vulnerable to both inland and coastal flooding. Hurricane Sandy exposed the vulnerabilities within the Project Area after low-lying areas were inundated by coastal storm surges. Within the Project Area, rainfall-induced flooding is more common and happens more frequently than coastal storm surge flooding. However, during Hurricane Sandy the impacts of rainfall flooding were considerably less than those from coastal storm surge flooding. If Hurricane Sandy had been a substantial rainfall event as well as a storm surge event, the Project Area's past history of flooding during heavy rainfall events indicates that the storm could have further increased flood levels and property damages.

Hurricane Sandy significantly impacted the Project Area, highlighting existing deficiencies in the Project Area's resiliency and ability to adequately protect vulnerable populations and critical infrastructure from flooding during major storm events. These impacts included extensive inland flooding due to major tidal surges, with significant damage to residential and commercial properties, impacts to critical health care facilities, and the failure of critical power, transportation, and water and sewer infrastructure. Approximately 1,600 homes, 600 rental properties, and 1,900 businesses within the Project Area were damaged by Hurricane Sandy. Loss of income, loss of property taxes, and other Sandy-related property damage were estimated to be in excess of $40 million within the Project Area, including over $20 million in property damages alone. The average amount of property damage to each structure in the Project Area ranged from approximately $1,000 to $12,000. Nearly 30 percent of the structures damaged within the Project Area were renter-occupied; finding affordable replacement housing for renters within the Project Area was one of the immediate challenges following the hurricane. The goal of the Proposed Project is to reduce such damages, impacts, and losses during future events by decreasing the flooding risk in the Project Area.

The Proposed Project includes the construction of flood risk reduction measures designed to address the impacts of coastal and riverine (fluvial) flooding on the quality of the human environment due to both storm hazards and sea level rise within the Project Area. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to reduce flood risk in the Project Area, thereby protecting critical infrastructure, residences, and businesses from the more frequent and intense flood events anticipated in the future.

The Proposed Project is needed to address: (1) Systemic inland flooding from high-intensity rainfall/runoff events, and (2) coastal flooding from storm surges and abnormally high tides. In addition to reducing flooding in the Project Area, the Proposed Project is needed to directly protect life, public health, and property in the Project Area, reduce flood insurance rates and claims from future events, and potentially restore property values to the extent possible with the available funding. The Proposed Project is needed to increase community resiliency, including protecting accessibility to, and on-going operations of, critical health care services, emergency services, and transportation and utility infrastructure. The Proposed Project will also deliver co-benefits, potentially integrating the flood hazard risk reduction strategy with civic, cultural, and recreational values to incorporate active and passive recreational uses, multi-use facilities, public spaces, and other design elements that integrate the Proposed Project into the fabric of the community to the extent practical with the available funding.

To address these needs, the Proposed Project would combine hard infrastructure (such as bulkheads or floodwalls), soft landscaping features (such as berms and/or levees), and/or a series of drainage improvements that would reduce flooding in the Project Area, with freshwater basins and the Meadowlands wetlands themselves increasing flood storage capacity and flood protection. The Proposed Project would connect to and potentially expand existing and future marshland restoration efforts by the New Jersey Sports and Exhibition Authority. Urban design features integrated into the proposed flood protection system would also provide ancillary benefits by enhancing natural areas and allowing public access to open spaces and increased recreational opportunities along the Hackensack River. The EIS will examine alternatives that best meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Project.

The EIS will examine three build alternatives, as well as a No Action Alternative. Each of the three build alternatives will seek to reduce the flood risk within the Project Area. These alternatives vary by the type of infrastructure that is proposed. Alternative 1 will analyze the use of levees, berms, barriers, or floodwalls to reduce flood risk. Alternative 2 will analyze the impacts of substantial drainage improvements achieved through a series of local projects within the Project Area to reduce flood risk, Alternative 3, a hybrid of Alternatives 1 and 2, will analyze the impacts of blending new infrastructure and drainage improvements to reduce flood risk in the Project Area.

Each alternative is being evaluated through the ongoing engineering feasibility analysis and application of preliminary screening criteria. These alternatives will be further developed and modified as the EIS process proceeds. Each alternative must be implementable within the limits of the CDBG-DR funding available at the latest by September 30, 2022. The three build alternatives, as currently proposed, are summarized below.

Alternative 1 or the Structural Flood Reduction Alternative. Alternative 1 will analyze various structural, infrastructure-based solutions that would be constructed to provide protection from both fluvial and tidal/storm surge flooding. This alternative, to the extent practical, would provide a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Certifiable level of flood protection to a portion of the Project Area. This alternative may consist of a range of structures, including levees, berms, barriers, drainage structures, pump stations, floodgates, and/or other hard and soft infrastructure to achieve the required level of flood protection. Different routing alignments and different levels of flood protection are also being considered.

Alternative 2 or the Fluvial/Rain Event Drainage Improvement Alternative. Alternative 2 will analyze a series of storm water drainage projects aimed at reducing the occurrence of higher frequency, small- to medium-scale flooding events that impact the communities located in the Project Area. Together, these interventions would provide a system of improved storm water management, and may include both local drainage improvements and wetlands restoration to protect communities located in the Project Area and address day-to-day water management challenges. These interventions may include: Drainage ditches, pipes, and pump stations at strategic locations; increased roadway elevations; new green infrastructure (e.g., wetland drainage basins, bioswales), water storage areas, and water control structures; cleaning and de-snagging of existing waterways; and increasing and enhancing public open space.

Alternative 3 or the Hybrid Alternative. Alternative 3 will analyze a strategic, synergistic blend of new infrastructure and local drainage improvements to reduce flood risk in the Project Area. Components of Alternatives 1 and 2 will be combined to provide an integrated, hybrid solution that employs a combination of appropriate levees, berms, drainage structures, pump stations, and/or floodgates, coupled with local drainage improvement projects, to achieve the maximum amount of flood protection within the boundaries of the Project Area.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative will also be evaluated in accordance with CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14(d). The No Action Alternative represents the status quo or baseline conditions without implementation of any of the improvements associated with the Proposed Project.

The alternatives analysis will consist of a comparison of the four alternatives' impacts on the human environment pursuant to 24 CFR part 58, as well as how well each alternative meets the Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Project. This process, which will be described in detail in the Draft EIS, will lead to the designation of a Preferred Alternative.

The Proposed Project described above has the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An EIS will therefore be prepared in accordance with NEPA requirements. Responses to this notice will be used to: (1) Determine significant environmental issues; (2) assist in developing a range of alternatives to be considered; (3) identify issues that the EIS should address; and (4) identify agencies and other parties that will participate in the EIS process and the basis for their involvement.

A public scoping meeting on the Draft Scope of Work will be held on July 6, 2016, from 6:00 until 8:00 p.m. at the Robert J. Craig School, located at 20 West Park Street, Moonachie, NJ 07074. The public meeting facility will be handicapped-accessible to the mobility-impaired. Interpreter services will be made available for persons who are hearing or visually impaired, upon advance request. Interpreter services will also be made available for persons with Limited English Proficiency through a language access service, upon advance request. The EIS scoping meeting will provide an opportunity for the public to learn more about the Project and provide input on the EIS and the NEPA process.

During the meeting, an overview of the Proposed Project will be provided, as well as details on the early development of alternatives. The public scoping meeting will also provide an opportunity for the public to provide comment on the Draft Scope of Work. The Draft Scope of Work will be made available to the public for review and comment at the scoping meeting. An electronic version of the Draft Scope of Work is available at www.rbd-meadowlands.nj.gov.

Comments on the Draft Scope of Work may be provided during the scoping meeting, or via the methods specified in this notice under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Comments on the Draft Scope of Work are requested by this notice and will be accepted and considered until July 20, 2016.

The following areas have been identified for analysis in the EIS: Land use and land use planning; visual quality and aesthetics; socioeconomics and community/population and housing; environmental justice; cultural and historic resources; transportation, traffic, and circulation, including airport operations; noise and vibration; air quality; greenhouse gas emissions; global climate change; recreation; utilities and service systems; public services; biological resources, including threatened and endangered species; geology and soils; hydrology and flooding, including floodplain management; water resources, water quality, and waters of the United States, including wetlands; coastal zone management; hazards and hazardous materials; and cumulative impacts.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: OneCPD Technical Assistance Needs Assessment.

OMB Approval Number: 2506-0198.

Type of Request: Extension.

Form Number: N/A.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Application information is needed to determine competition winners, i.e., the technical assistance providers best able to develop efficient and effective programs and projects that increase the supply of affordable housing units, prevent and reduce homelessness, improve data collection and reporting, and use coordinated neighborhood and community development strategies to revitalize and strengthen their communities.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

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

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.

Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: Veterans Home Rehabilitation Program.

OMB Approval Number: 2506-new.

Type of Request: New.

Form Number: SF-424; HUD 424-CB; HUD 424-CBW; SF-LLL; HUD 2880; HUD 2990; HUD 2991; HUD 2993; HUD 2994A; HUD 27061; and HUD 27300.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The purpose of this submission is for applications for the Veterans Home Rehabilitation Program grant process. The Veterans Home Rehabilitation program is funded by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, Section 1079 (Pub. L. 113-291). Information is required to rate and rank competitive applications and to ensure eligibility of applicants for funding. Quarterly reporting is required to monitor grant management.

Respondents: Public.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 200.

Estimated Number of Responses: 200.

Frequency of Response: Once.

Average Hours per Response: 2,548.

Total Estimated Burdens: 63,700.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

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

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.

Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

We announce the availability of the Recovery Plan for the following four species of the Santa Rosa Plain:

Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is a primary goal of our endangered species program and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Recovery means improvement of the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species.

We listed Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma sunshine), Lasthenia burkei (Burke's goldfields), and Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol meadowfoam) as endangered on December 2, 1991 (56 FR 61173). The present ranges of these species are predominantly located on the Santa Rosa Plain, which is located in central Sonoma County, bordered on the south and west by the Laguna de Santa Rosa, on the east by the Coast Range foothills, and on the north by the Russian River. However, the geographic area covered by this recovery plan includes all known locations of the species, some of which are outside of the Plain. They are annual plants that exist only in seasonal wetlands.

We listed the Sonoma County California tiger salamander, which we identified as a distinct population segment (DPS), as endangered on March 19, 2003 (68 FR 13498). The species is endemic to the Santa Rosa Plain. The Sonoma County California tiger salamander requires seasonal wetlands for breeding, and the surrounding uplands (upland habitat) for dispersal, feeding, growth, maturation, and maintenance of the juvenile and adult population.

The loss, degradation, and fragmentation of seasonal wetlands due to development have led to population declines for all four species. While ongoing agricultural practices have disturbed seasonal wetlands, certain agricultural practices, such as irrigated or grazed pasture, have protected habitat from intensive development and are compatible with persistence of these listed species. However, conversion of pastures to vineyards is a current threat of high magnitude.

The purpose of a recovery plan is to provide a framework for the recovery of species so that protection under the Act is no longer necessary. A recovery plan includes scientific information about the species and provides criteria that enable us to gauge whether downlisting or delisting the species is warranted. Furthermore, recovery plans help guide our recovery efforts by describing actions we consider necessary for each species' conservation and by estimating time and costs for implementing needed recovery measures.

The ultimate goal of this recovery plan is to recover Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma sunshine), Lasthenia burkei (Burke's goldfields), Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol meadowfoam), and California Tiger Salamander Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (Ambystoma californiense) so that they can be delisted. To meet the recovery goals, the following objectives have been identified:

1. Restore habitat conditions to sustain viable (meta) populations of species to support self-sufficiency in perpetuity.

2. Maintain the current geographic, elevational, and ecological distribution of each listed species.

3. Maintain the genetic structure and diversity of existing populations.

4. Protect and manage sufficient habitat to ensure that the listed entity is able to adapt to unforeseen or unknown threats, such as climate change.

5. Reintroduce individuals to successfully establish new populations in historically occupied areas.

6. Minimize the contribution of extant or potential threats.

7. Monitor species population trends across multiple years (and varied climatic conditions) to determine whether abundances are sustainable.

8. Manage occurrences on a case-by-case basis during consultation, with an emphasis on protections to identified core areas.

As Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma sunshine), Lasthenia burkei (Burke's goldfields), Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol meadowfoam), and California Tiger Salamander Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (Ambystoma californiense) meet reclassification and recovery criteria, we will review their status and consider them for removal from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

We developed our recovery plan under the authority of section 4(f) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f). We publish this notice under section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

We announce the extension of the public comment period on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Lower Klamath, Clear Lake, Tule Lake, Upper Klamath, and Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuges (Refuges). We opened the comment period on May 6, 2016, via a Federal Register notice (81 FR 27468), and now extend it to accommodate public requests. If you have already submitted comments, you do not need to resubmit them. They will be considered.

In addition to any methods in ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain documents at the following locations:

• Public Libraries: The table below lists the libraries where the document can be found during regular library hours.

We request that you send comments only by one of the methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as documents associated with the notice, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-NWRS-2016-0063.

The locations, dates, and times of public meetings will be listed in a planning update distributed to the project mailing list and posted on the refuge planning Web site at http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Tule_Lake/what_we_do/conservation.html.

To view comments on the draft CCP/EIS from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), go to https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cds-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

We have received an application from Wildcat Wind Farm I LLC (WWF) for an incidental take permit under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If approved, the ITP would be for a 28-year period and would authorize incidental take of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis).

The applicant has prepared a draft HCP that covers the operation of the Wildcat Wind Farm (Wildcat). The project consists of a wind-powered electric generation facility located in an approximately 24,434-acre area in Madison and Tipton Counties, Indiana. The draft HCP describes the following: (1) Biological goals and objectives of the HCP; (2) covered activities; (3) permit duration; (4) project area; (5) alternatives to the taking that were considered; (5) public participation; (6) life history of the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat; (6) quantification of the take for which authorization is requested; (7) assessment of direct and indirect effects of the taking on the Indiana bat within the Midwest Recovery Unit (as delineated in the 2007 Indiana Bat Draft Recovery Plan, Service) and rangewide; (8) assessment of direct and indirect effects of the taking on the northern long-eared bat within the Service's Midwest region and range wide; (9) conservation program consisting of avoidance and minimization measures, mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management; (10) funding for the HCP; (11) procedures to deal with changed and unforeseen circumstances; and (12) methods for ITP amendments.

In addition to the draft HCP, the applicant has prepared a draft IA to document the responsibilities of the parties. The Service invites comment on the IA as well as the applicant's HCP.

Under the NEPA (43 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the ESA, the Service announces that we have gathered the information necessary to:

1. Determine the impacts and formulate alternatives for an EA related to:

a. Issuance of an ITP to the applicant for the take of the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat, and

b. Implementation of the associated HCP; and

2. Evaluate the application for ITP issuance, including the HCP, which provides measures to minimize and mitigate the effects of the proposed incidental take of the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat.

The WWF application is unusual in that the wind facility has been operational since 2012. The project includes 125 GE 1.6-megawatt (MW) wind turbines and has a total energy capacity of 200 MW. The need for the proposed action (i.e., issuance of an ITP) is based on the potential that operation of the Wildcat Wind Farm could result in take of Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats.

The HCP provides a detailed conservation plan to ensure that the incidental take caused by the operation of the project will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat, and provides mitigation to fully offset the impact of the taking. Further, the HCP provides a long-term monitoring and adaptive management strategy to ensure that the ITP terms are satisfied, and to account for changed and unforeseen circumstances.

In accordance with NEPA, the Service has prepared an EA to analyze the impacts to the human environment that would occur if the requested ITP were issued and the associated HCP were implemented.

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “taking” of threatened and endangered species. However, provided certain criteria are met, the Service is authorized to issue permits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA for take of federally listed species when, among other things, such a taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Under the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect endangered and threatened species, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Our implementing regulations define “harm” as an act which actually kills or injures wildlife, and such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Harass, as defined, means “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3).

The HCP analyzes, and the ITP would cover, take from harassment and harm, and killing of bats due to the operation of the Wildcat project. If issued, the ITP would authorize incidental take consistent with the applicant's HCP and the ITP. To issue the ITP, the Service must find that the application, including its HCP, satisfies the criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and the Service's implementing regulations at 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.22. If the ITP is issued, the applicant would receive assurances under the Service's No Surprises policy, as codified at 50 CFR 17.22(b)(5).

The applicant proposes to operate a maximum of 125 wind turbines and associated facilities (described below) for a period of 28 years in Madison and Tipton Counties, Indiana. The project will consist of wind turbines, associated access roads, an underground and aboveground electrical collector system, one substation containing transformers that feed electricity into an existing 138-kilovolt (kV) electrical tie-in line (an approximately 1.5-mile-long line that connects the substation to the switching station), three permanent meteorological towers, and an operations and maintenance building. Project facilities and infrastructure is placed on private land via long-term easement agreements between the applicant and respective landowners.

The draft HCP describes the impacts of take associated with the operation of the Wildcat Wind Farm and includes measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor the impacts of incidental take on the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat. The applicant will mitigate for take and associated impacts through protection and restoration of maternity colony habitat at one or more documented maternity colonies. Maternity colony habitat mitigation, including any restored habitat, will occur on private land and be permanently protected by restrictive covenants approved by the Service. Chapter 5 of the HCP describes the Conservation Program, including details of avoidance and minimization measures, compensatory mitigation, and adaptive management that will limit and mitigate for the take of Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats.

The Service is soliciting information regarding the adequacy of the HCP to avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor the proposed incidental take of the covered species and to provide for adaptive management. In compliance with section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(c)), the Service is making the ITP application materials available for public review and comment as described above.

We invite comments and suggestions from all interested parties on the draft documents associated with the ITP application (HCP, HCP Appendices, and IA), and request that comments be as specific as possible. In particular, we request information and comments on the following topics:

1. Whether adaptive management and monitoring provisions in the Proposed Action alternative are sufficient;

2. Any threats to the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat that may influence its population over the life of the ITP that are not addressed in the draft HCP or draft EIS;

3. Any new information on white-nose syndrome effects on the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat; and

4. Any other information pertinent to evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat.

The DEA contains an analysis of four alternatives: (1) No Action alternative, in which all 125 turbines would be feathered up to 5.0 meters per second (m/s) from 1/2 hour before sunset to 1/2 hour after sunrise from March 15 through May 15, and all turbines would be feathered up to 6.9 m/s from 1/2 hour before sunset to 1/2 hour after sunrise from August 1 through October 15, the primary spring and fall migratory periods of the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat, each year during the operational life (27 years) of Wildcat; (2) the 5.0 m/s Cut-In Speed (feathered) Alternative including implementation of the HCP and Issuance of a 28-year ITP; (3) the 6.5 m/s Cut-In Speed (feathered) Alternative, including implementation of the HCP and issuance of a 28-year ITP; and (4) the 4.0 m/s Cut-In Speed (Feathered) Alternative, including implementation of the HCP and Issuance of a 28-year ITP. The DEA considers the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives, including any measures under the Proposed Action alternative intended to minimize and mitigate such impacts. The DEA also identifies three additional alternatives that were considered but were eliminated from consideration as detailed in Section 3.4 of the DEA.

The Service invites comments and suggestions from all interested parties on the content of the DEA. In particular, information and comments regarding the following topics are requested:

1. The direct, indirect, or cumulative effects that implementation of any alternative could have on the human environment;

2. Whether or not the significance of the impact on various aspects of the human environment has been adequately analyzed; and

3. Any other information pertinent to evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the human environment.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning the notice by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by one of the methods described in ADDRESSES.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as documents associated with the notice, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Indiana Ecological Services Field Office in Bloomington, Indiana (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22), the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6; 43 CFR part 46), and the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800).

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), are preparing a joint environmental impact statement/environmental impact report (EIS/EIR) for the proposed restoration of ponds E1, E1C, E2, E2C, E4, E4C, E5, E5C, E6, E6C, and E7 at the CDFW's Eden Landing Ecological Reserve (Reserve) in Alameda County, California.

Phase 2 of the SBSP Restoration Project at Eden Landing is intended to restore and enhance a mix of approximately 2,300 acres of wetland habitats while simultaneously providing flood protection and wildlife-oriented public access and recreation in the South Bay.

We intend to gather information necessary to prepare an EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We encourage the public and other agencies to participate in the NEPA scoping process by attending the public scoping meeting and/or by sending written suggestions and information on the issues and concerns that should be addressed in the draft EIS/EIR, including the range of alternatives, appropriate mitigation measures, and the nature and extent of potential environmental impacts.

The SBSP Restoration Project is located in the San Francisco Bay, in northern California. The project is a multiagency, multiphase effort to restore and enhance a mix of wetland habitats while simultaneously providing flood protection and wildlife-oriented public access and recreation in the South Bay. The SBSP Restoration Project as a whole contains over 15,000 acres of former industrial salt production ponds in three complexes: The Ravenswood pond complex, the Alviso pond complex, and the Eden Landing pond complex. The Ravenswood and Alviso pond complexes are owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The Eden Landing Ecological Reserve (Reserve) is owned by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

In 2007, the USFWS and the CDFW published a Final EIS/EIR for the SBSP Restoration Project (72 FR 71937-71939). The SBSP Restoration project presented in the Final EIS/EIR was both programmatic, covering a 50-year period, as well as project-level, addressing the specific components and implementation of Phase 1. Both the USFWS and the CDFW selected the Tidal Emphasis Alternative (Alternative C) for implementation. Alternative C represents a goal of 90 percent of the salt ponds restored to tidal action and 10 percent restored to managed ponds. This ratio of restoration is guided by the Adaptive Management Plan. Implementation of Phase 1 actions began in 2008 and was completed in 2016. The northern half of the Eden Landing pond complex was addressed in Phase 1 and is now complete.

The Phase 2 actions at the Alviso and Ravenswood pond complexes were considered in a separate project-level EIS/EIR, the draft of which was published in August of 2015 and is expected to be finalized in the summer of 2016.

The CDFW now proposes restoration or enhancement of approximately 2,300 acres of former salt ponds in the southern half of the CDFW-owned Eden Landing pond complex. Phase 2 project-level actions to be evaluated in this EIS/EIR are project-level habitat restoration of approximately 2,300 acres of former salt ponds, while also providing recreation and public access opportunities, and maintaining or improving current levels of flood protection in the surrounding communities.

Habitat restoration actions evaluated in the EIS/EIR may include the following:

• Breaching levees at one or more locations to allow tidal flows into the ponds.

• Adding water control structures to allow some ponds to be retained as enhanced managed ponds for pond-dependent bird species.

• Increasing habitat complexity by adding deep-water channels, islands, and/or habitat transition zones.

• Modifying pond bottom elevations or topography to redirect tidal flows.

• Using dredged or upland fill material to speed marsh vegetation establishment.

Recreation and public access actions may include the following:

• Maintain the existing trail that runs along the top of the large Federal levee that forms the southern edge of the complex. This may involve constructing bridge(s) over any changes that are made to that levee.

• Complete the Bay Trail spine along the eastern edge of the pond complex.

• Adding a spur trail along the northern edge of Pond E6 from the Bay Trail spine to the site of the former Alvarado Salt Works.

• Convert the above spur trail into a loop by building a footbridge over Old Alameda Creek and a trail back to the Bay Trail spine.

Flood protection may include:

• Raising and improving existing levees or berms or making other improvements to maintain or increase coastal flood risk protection.

The EIS/EIR will consider a range of alternatives and their impacts, including the No Action/No Project Alternative. Scoping is designed to be an early and open process to determine the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS/EIR. The range of alternatives may include varying approaches to restoring and enhancing a mix of wetland habitats, as well as varying levels and means of flood management, and recreation and public access components which correspond to the project objectives.

The Phase 2 EIS/EIR for Eden Landing will identify the anticipated effects of the alternatives (both negative and beneficial) and describe and analyze direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of each alternative.

This EIS/EIR is a project-level environmental document that is tiered from the programmatic portion of the 2007 Final EIS/EIR for the SBSP Restoration Project. Information gathered through this scoping process will assist us in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to continue to address the restoration of Eden Landing salt ponds and collaborative integration with adjacent landowners and operators of public infrastructure.

A detailed description of the proposed action and alternatives will be included in the EIS/EIR. For each issue or potential impact identified, the EIS/EIR will include a discussion of the parameters used in evaluating the impacts as well as recommended mitigation, indicating the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed to be implemented and what, if any, additional measures would be required to reduce the degree of impact. The EIS/EIR will include an analysis of the restoration, flood management, and recreation and public access components associated with the proposed restoration.

We will conduct environmental review in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), its implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), other applicable regulations, and our procedures for compliance with those regulations. The environmental document will be prepared to meet both the requirements of NEPA and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CDFW is the CEQA lead agency and USFWS is the lead agency under NEPA. We are the NEPA lead agency because we provide a variety of biological monitoring, financial and management support on this CDFW unit. We anticipate that a Draft EIS/EIR will be available for public review in November 2016.

We are furnishing this notice in accordance with section 1501.7 of the NEPA implementing regulations to obtain suggestions and information from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS/EIR. We invite written comments from interested parties to ensure identification of the full range of issues.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in you comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

In addition to providing written comments, the public is encouraged to attend a public scoping meeting on Thursday, June 30, 2016, to provide us with suggestions and information on the scope of issues and alternatives to consider when drafting the EIS/EIR. The location of the public scoping meeting is provided in DATES.

Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public meeting should contact us at the address in ADDRESSES no later than 1 week before the public meeting. Information regarding the proposed restoration is available in alterative formats upon request. We will accept written comments at the scoping meeting or afterwards.

The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We seek review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies and the public on the following permit requests.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino); and take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, analyze soil samples, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (receive, handle, and administer veterinary treatment and care) the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) in conjunction with general husbandry activities at the Oakland Zoo in Oakland, California, for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia); and take (harass by survey using taped vocalization callback) the California Ridgway's rail (California clapper r.) (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) (R. longirostris o.) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey using taped vocalization callback) the California Ridgway's rail (California clapper r.) (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) (R. longirostris o.) in conjunction with survey activities in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, and locate and monitor nests) the California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) (Sterna a. browni); take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, and remove brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) eggs and chicks from parasitized nests) the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) in Santa Barbara County, California; and remove/reduce to possession Nasturtium gambelii (Rorippa g.) (Gambel's watercress), Deinandra increscens subsp. villosa (Gaviota tarplant), Layia carnosa (beach layia), Eriodictyon capitatum (Lompoc yerba santa), Cirsium loncholepis (La Graciosa thistle), and Diplacus vandenbergensis (Vandenberg monkeyflower) from Federal lands in Santa Barbara County, California, in conjunction with survey and research activity for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, handle/mark eggs, capture, band, and release) the California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) (Sterna a. browni) in conjunction with survey and population monitoring activities in San Diego County, California, for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey using taped vocalization callback) the California Ridgway's rail (California clapper r.) (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) (R. longirostris o.) in conjunction with survey activities in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, and locate and monitor nests) the California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) (Sterna a. browni) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

We invite public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Introduction

We have received an application from the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (applicant) for a 5-year incidental take permit under the endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The application addresses the potential for “take” of two listed animals, the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and giant garter snake, likely to result from the construction of a new flood protection levee and raised all-weather access road around the existing South River Pump Station. Below we refer to both species, collectively, as the covered species. The applicant would implement a conservation program to minimize and mitigate the project activities, as described in the applicant's low-effect habitat conservation plan (HCP). We request comments on the application package, which includes the HCP, and our preliminary determination that the HCP qualifies as a “low-effect” HCP, eligible for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). We discuss our basis for this determination in our environmental action statement (EAS), also available for public review.

Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 et seq.) and our regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17) prohibit the taking of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Act. Take of federally listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to engage in such conduct. The term “harass” is defined in the regulations as to carry out actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harm” is defined in the regulations as significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury of listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). However, under specified circumstances, the Service may issue permits that allow the take of federally listed species, provided that the take that occurs is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity.

Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains provisions for issuing such incidental take permits to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met:

(1) The taking will be incidental;

(2) The applicants will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking;

(3) The applicants will develop a proposed HCP and ensure that adequate funding for the HCP will be provided;

(4) The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and

(5) The applicants will carry out any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP.

The draft HCP addresses potential effects to the covered species that may result from the proposed activities. The applicant seeks incidental take authorization for covered activities within the 136.4-acre South River Pump Station site, located at 30030 South River Road, in Sacramento County, California. The federally threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) (VELB) and the federally threatened giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) (GGS) are the covered species in the applicant's proposed HCP.

The applicant would seek incidental take authorization for these two covered species and would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)).

Construction of a new flood protection levee and raised all-weather access road will result in the permanent removal of 23 elderberry shrubs, considered potential habitat for the VELB, and temporary impacts to 10.775 acres of riparian scrub, ruderal, annual grassland, agricultural crop, and urban vegetation communities considered upland habitat for GGS. The following actions are proposed as the “covered activities” under the HCP: Site preparation; tree removal; transplanting elderberry shrubs, embankment degrade; excavation of inspection trench and borrow material; construction of the levee; construction and removal of temporary access road (if needed); construction of access roads, maintenance roads, and a permanent access road for the borrow site; and site restoration. The applicant seeks a 5-year permit to cover the activities associated with this proposed construction within the 136.4-acre project site.

The applicant proposes to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the effects to the covered species associated with the covered activities by fully implementing the HCP. The applicant will satisfy the mitigation requirements by purchasing 55 VELB credits from a USFWS-approved conservation bank and transplanting the removed elderberry shrubs to the conservation bank, and by restoring temporarily impacted upland GGS habitat to pre-project conditions within the same calendar year (Option 1). If final restoration of a portion of the temporarily impacted upland GGS habitat occurs the calendar year following the initial impact, then the applicant will satisfy additional mitigation requirements by dedicating 0.780 acre of created GGS habitat at the South Stone Lake Giant Garter Snake Mitigation Preserve or through the purchase of mitigation credits from a USFWS-approved conservation/mitigation bank (Option 2). To minimize effects to VELB, the applicant is proposing to implement the avoidance and minimization measures outlined in the Formal Programmatic Consultation for Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the VELB (USFWS 1996a) and the Conservation Guidelines for the VELB (USFWS 1999a). To minimize effects to GGS, the applicant is proposing to implement the avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures as specified in Appendix C of the Programmatic Formal Consultation for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permitted Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the Giant Garter Snake within Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Fresno, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter and Yolo Counties, California (USFWS 1997).

Our proposed action (see below) is approving the applicant's HCP and issuance of an incidental take permit for take resulting from implementation of the covered activities. As required by the Act, the applicant's HCP considers alternatives to the take under the proposed action. The HCP considers the environmental consequences of two alternatives to the proposed action: (1) The No Action Alternative; and (2) the West Borrow Site Alternative.

Under the No-Action Alternative, we would not issue an incidental take permit, the applicant would not build the flood protection levee and access road, the elderberry shrubs and upland GGS habitat would not be disturbed, and the applicant would not implement proposed mitigation measures. While this No-Action Alternative would avoid take of the covered species, it is considered infeasible because should a significant flood event occur along the Sacramento River, sewer service could be impacted for thousands of customers in the communities that Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District serves. For this reason, the No-Action Alternative has been rejected.

Under the West Borrow Site Alternative, the borrow material necessary to construct the flood protection levee would be procured from an agricultural field located to the west of the project site, and an alternative haul road would need to be constructed. The West Borrow Site Alternative would impact the same number of elderberry shrubs and acreage of GGS upland habitat as the Proposed Action Alternative. In addition to those impacts, there would be 0.422 acre of GGS aquatic habitat impacts associated with construction of the alternative haul road, as well as an additional 19.58 acres of GGS upland habitat impacts. For this reason, the West Borrow Site Alternative has been rejected.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, we would issue an incidental take permit for the applicant's proposed project, which includes the activities described above. The Proposed Action Alternative would result in the permanent removal of 23 elderberry shrubs, considered potential habitat for the VELB and temporary impacts to 10.775 acres of upland habitat for GGS. To mitigate for these effects, the applicant proposes to purchase 55 VELB credits from a USFWS-approved conservation bank and transplant the removed elderberry shrubs to the conservation bank, and restore temporarily impacted upland GGS habitat to pre-project conditions within the same calendar year (Option 1). If final restoration of a portion of the temporarily impacted upland GGS habitat occurs the calendar year following the initial impact, then the applicant will satisfy additional mitigation requirements, in addition to what is proposed in Option 1, by dedicating 0.780 acre of created GGS habitat at the South Stone Lake Giant Garter Snake Mitigation Preserve or through the purchase of mitigation credits from a USFWS-approved conservation/mitigation bank (Option 2).

We made a preliminary determination that the applicants' project, including the mitigation measures, will individually and cumulatively have a minor or negligible effect on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, issuance of the ITP is a “low-effect” action and qualifies as a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1).

Determination of whether a habitat conservation plan qualifies as a low effect is based on the following three criteria: (1) Implementation of the proposed HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the proposed HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts of the HCP, considered together with the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result, over time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources that would be considered significant. Based upon the preliminary determinations in the EAS, we do not intend to prepare further NEPA documentation. We will consider public comments when making the final determination on whether to prepare an additional NEPA document on the proposed action.

We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice. We particularly seek comments on the following:

(1) Our preliminary determination that the applicant's proposal will have a minor or negligible effect on the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and giant garter snake and the HCP qualifies as a low-effect HCP.

(2) Biological information concerning the species;

(3) Relevant data concerning the species;

(4) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of the species;

(5) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on the species; and

(6) Identification of any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed project and permit action.

You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed above in ADDRESSES. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the EAS, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Before including your address, phone number, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—might be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

We will evaluate the permit application, including the HCP and comments we receive, to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the incidental take permit would comply with section 7(a)(2) of the Act by conducting an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the requirements are met, we will issue a permit to the applicant for the incidental take of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and giant garter snake from the implementation of the covered activities described in the low-effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and giant garter snake, South River Pump Station, Sacramento, California. We will make the final permit decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

We publish this notice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 et seq.; NEPA), and its implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1500-1508, as well as in compliance with section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 et seq.; Act).

The public is invited to comment on the following applications for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and our regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17. This notice is provided under section 10(c) of the Act.

If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of the following methods. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES section) or send them via electronic mail (email) to [email protected]. Please include your name and return address in your email message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the Fish and Wildlife Service that we have received your email message, contact us directly at the telephone number listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Finally, you may hand-deliver comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service office listed above (see ADDRESSES).

Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The applicant requests an amendment of his current permit to add authorization to take (enter hibernacula or maternity roost caves, salvage dead bats, capture with mist nets or harp traps, handle, identify, collect hair samples, band, radio tag, light-tag, swab, and wing-punch) Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus (=plecotus) townsendii virginianus) in addition to conducting those activities with the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), gray bat (Myotis grisescens), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and Ozark big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens) and to add authorization to conduct all activities in the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland, Vermont, New Jersey, and Delaware for scientific research aimed at recovery of the species, such as presence/absence surveys, studies to document habitat use, population monitoring, and evaluation of potential impacts of white-nose syndrome or other threats.

The applicant requests renewal of her permit to continue the following activities: Take (monitor nests, excavate, temporarily retain nestlings, and relocate) Kemp's ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempii), loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta), and green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) for purposes of monitoring and protecting nests; take (capture, mark, and release); Alabama beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) and Perdido Key beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) for presence/absence surveys; and take (scope burrows) gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) for presence/absence surveys in Baldwin and Mobile Counties, Alabama.

The applicant requests an amendment of their current permit to take (capture with mist net or harp trap, enter hibernacula and roosts, band; radio-tag; and wing punch) Ozark big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens) for the purpose of conducting presence/absence surveys throughout the range of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, identify, tag, release, and salvage relict shells) Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterondon), James River spinymussel (Pleurobema collina), little-wing pearlymussel (Pegias fabula), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and noonday globe (Patera clarki nantahala) in North Carolina and South Carolina for qualitative and quantitative surveys, relocation and monitoring efforts, and other scientific research to promote management and recovery of the species.

The applicant requests renewal of their permit to take (enter hibernacula or maternity roost caves, salvage dead bats, capture with mist nets or harp traps, handle, identify, collect hair samples, band, radio-tag, light-tag, and wing-punch) Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis), gray bats (Myotis grisescens), Virginia big eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus), northern long eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis), and Ozark big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens) while conducting presence/absence surveys, studies to document habitat use, and population monitoring; take (capture, identify, release) blackside dace (Phoxinus cumberlandensis), Citico darter (Etheostoma sitikuense), Cumberland arrow darter (Etheostoma sagitta sagitta), Cumberland darter (Etheostoma susannae), diamond darter (Crystallaria cincotta), duskytail darter (Etheostoma percnurum), Kentucky arrow darter (Etheostoma sagitta spilotum), marbled darter (Etheostoma marmorpinnum), palezone shiner (Notropis albizonatus), snail darter (Percina tanasi), and tuxedo darter (Etheostoma lemniscatum) while conducting presence/absence surveys; and take (capture, identify, release, collect relict shells) 53 endangered and threatened species of freshwater mussels while conducting presence/absence surveys. Activities are permitted in 39 states.

The applicant requests renewal and amendment of their current permit to continue collection of seeds and cuttings (removal and reduction to possession) of Key tree cactus (Pilosocereus robinii), Garber's spurge (Chamaesyce garberi), Cape Sable thoroughwort (Chromolaena frustrate), Vahl's boxwood (Buxus vahlii), Catesbaea melanocarpa (no common name), and Agave eggersiana (no common name) and add authorization to collect seeds and cuttings of Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea corallicola), Calyptranthes thomasiana (no common name), and St. Thomas prickly ash (Zanthoxylum thomasianum), along with the proposed endangered sand flax (Linum arenicola), Big Pine partridge pea (Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis), wedge spurge (Euphorbia (Chamaesyce) deltoidea ssp. serpyllum), and the proposed threatened Blodgett's silverbush (Argythamnia blodgetii) from Key West National Wildlife Refuge, Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge, National Key Deer Refuge, Everglades National Park, and Virgin Islands National Park for propagation, conducting genetic studies, and long-term seed storage.

The applicant requests renewal of their permit to take (capture, identify, release) blue shiner (Cyprineila caerulea), Etowah darter (Etheostoma etowahae), Cherokee darter (Etheostoma scotti), amber darter (Percina antesella), goldline darter (Percina aurolineata), Conasauga logperch (Percina jenkinsi), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) and take (capture, identify, release, collect relict shells) Coosa moccasinshell (Medionidus parvulus), fine-lined pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis), southern pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum), Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus), fat threeridge (Amblema neisleri), purple bankclimber (Elliptoideus sloatianus), shiny-rayed pocketbook (Hamiota subangulata), gulf moccasinshell (Medionidus penicillatus), oval pigtoe (Pleurobema pyriforme), and cylindrical lioplax (Lioplax cyclostomaformis) for presence/absence surveys in Georgia.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, release) pink mucket pearly mussel (Lampsilis abrupta), northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana), fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria), clubshell (Pleurobema clava), snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), and rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) for presence/absence surveys throughout the species' ranges.

The applicant requests renewal of his permit to take (trap, mark, examine, and release) Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates), Perdido Key beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis), Choctawatchee beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus allophrys), and St. Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) for presence/absence surveys in Alabama and Florida.

The applicant requests renewal of their current permit to continue to cooperate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the captive propagation and reintroduction of the red wolf (Canis rufus), which may include take (capture, handle, tag, and release) in addition to the normal husbandry activities carried out by the permittee for which no permit is required.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

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

1. Type of Information Collection (check justification or form 83): Extension of a currently approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Notification of Change of Mailing or Premise Address

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

Form number (if applicable): None.

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

Primary: Business or other for-profit.

Other (if applicable): None.

Abstract: During the term of a license or permit, a licensee or permittee may move his business or operations to a new address at which he intends to regularly carry on his business or operations, without procuring a new license or permit. However, in every case, the licensee or permittee shall notify the Chief, Federal Explosives Licensing Center of the change. This collection of information is contained in 27 CFR 555.54.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 1,000 respondents will take 10 minutes to respond.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 170 hours.

If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.