Federal Register Vol. 81, No.160,

The AC21 has been established to provide information and advice to the Secretary of Agriculture on the broad array of issues related to the expanding dimensions and importance of agricultural biotechnology. The committee is charged with examining the long-term impacts of biotechnology on the U.S. food and agriculture system and USDA, and providing guidance to USDA on pressing individual issues, identified by the Office of the Secretary, related to the application of biotechnology in agriculture. In recent years, the work of the AC21 has centered on the issue of coexistence among different types of agricultural production systems. The AC21 consists of members representing the biotechnology industry, the organic food industry, farming communities, the seed industry, food manufacturers, state government, consumer and community development groups, as well as academic researchers and a medical doctor. In addition, representatives from the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative serve as “ex officio” members.

In its last report, issued on November 17, 2012, entitled “Enhancing Coexistence: A Report to the Secretary of Agriculture,” and available on the Web site listed below, the AC21 offered a diverse package of recommendations, among which was a recommendation that “. . . USDA should facilitate development of joint coexistence plans by neighboring farmers,” and that in a pilot program, USDA should, among other things, offer incentives for the development of such plans.

At its meeting on December 14-15, 2015, USDA offered a specific new charge to the AC21 building on its previous work. Recognizing that USDA currently lacks the legal authority to offer any such incentives, the committee has been charged with considering the following two questions: Is there an approach by which farmers could be encouraged to work with their neighbors to develop joint coexistence plans at the State or local level? If so, how might the Federal government assist in that process?

At the AC21's two most recent meetings, on March 14-15, 2016 and June 13-14, 2016, AC21 members reached a general agreement on the main elements of the upcoming report and made substantial progress in defining the content of its next report. The report is to include, among other things, a model for convening coexistence discussions at the local level as well as guidance for farmers around the production of identity-preserved crops. The objective for this meeting is to complete all substantive work on the report to USDA.

Background information regarding the work and membership of the AC21 is available on the USDA Web site at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=AC21Main.xml&contentidonly=true. A copy of the draft AC21 report under consideration will be made available on that Web site at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

Register for the Meeting: The public is asked to pre-register for the meeting at least 8 business days prior to the meeting. Your pre-registration must state: The names of each person in your group; organization or interest represented; the number of people planning to give oral comments, if any; and whether anyone in your group requires special accommodations. Submit registrations to Ms. Dianne Fowler at (202) 720-4074 or by Email at [email protected] by August 26, 2016. The Agricultural Research Service will also accept walk-in registrations. Members of the public who request to give oral comments to the Committee, must arrive by 8:45 a.m. on September 8, 2016 and will be given their allotted time limit and turn at the check-in table.

Public Comments: Written public comments may be mailed to Michael Schechtman, Designated Federal Official, Office of the Deputy Secretary, USDA, 202B Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building, 12th and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250; via fax to (202) 690-4265 or email to [email protected] All written comments must arrive by September 1, 2016. Oral comments are also accepted. To request to give oral comments, see instructions under `Register for the Meeting' above.

Availability of Materials for the Meeting: All written public comments will be compiled into a binder and available for review at the meeting. Duplicate comments from multiple individuals will appear as one comment, with a notation that multiple copies of the comment were received. Please visit the Web site listed above to learn more about the agenda for or reports resulting from this meeting.

Meeting Accommodations: The meeting will be open to the public, but space is limited. USDA is committed to ensuring that all employees are included in our work environment, programs and events. If you are a person with a disability and request reasonable accommodations to participate in this meeting, please note the request in your registration. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health (the Committee) advises the Secretary of Agriculture on matters of animal health, including means to prevent, conduct surveillance on, monitor, control, or eradicate animal diseases of national importance. In doing so, the Committee will consider public health, conservation of natural resources, and the stability of livestock economies.

Tentative topics for discussion at the meeting include:

• Human infections with Salmonella associated with contact with live poultry;

• Emerging diseases implementation guide;

• Emerging disease response;

• Comprehensive integrated animal health surveillance;

• VS stakeholder engagement;

• Foot and mouth disease vaccine availability;

• National bio and agro-defense facility update and request for input on process for identifying stakeholder priorities;

• How to maximize effectiveness of the committee; and

• Potential agenda items for the 2016-2018 committee term.

A final agenda will be posted on the Committee Web site.

Those wishing to attend the meeting in person must complete a brief registration form by clicking on the “SACAH Meeting Sign-Up” button on the Committee's Web site (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animalhealth/sacah). Members of the public may also join the meeting via teleconference in “listen-only” mode. Participants who wish to listen in on the teleconference may do so by dialing 888-945-5893 and then entering the public passcode 5309315#. Oral comments from the public will be accepted at approximately 1:15 p.m. each day.

Questions and written statements for the Committee's consideration may be submitted up to 5 working days before the meeting. They may be sent to [email protected] or mailed to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The statement must also reference Docket Number APHIS-2016-0056.

This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

Title: Tuberculosis.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0146.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prohibit or restrict the interstate movement of animals and animal products to prevent the dissemination within the United States of animal diseases and pests and for conducting programs to detect, control, and eradicate pests and diseases of livestock. In connection with this mission, APHIS participates in a cooperative State/Federal tuberculosis eradication program, which is a national program to eliminate tuberculosis from the United States. This program is conducted under various States' authorities supplemented by Federal authorities regulating the interstate movement of affected animals.

The tuberculosis regulations contained in 9 CFR part 77 provide several levels of tuberculosis risk classifications to be applied to States and zones within States, and classify States and zones according to their tuberculosis risk. The regulations restrict the interstate movement of cattle, bison, and captive cervids from the various classes of States or zones to prevent the spread of tuberculosis.

These regulations include, but are not limited to, information collection activities, such as memoranda of understanding; agreements; reports; testing records and status reports; plans, permits, and certificates; specimen submissions; risk surveys; proceeds from animals, animal products, and materials sold for salvage; appraisal and indemnity claims; labeling; and recordkeeping.

The information collection requirements above are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0579-0146, Tuberculosis, and OMB Control Number 0579-0412, Approved Tests for Bovine Tuberculosis in Cervids. After OMB approves this combined information collection package (0579-0146), APHIS will retire OMB Control Number 0579-0412.

We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.33 hours per response.

Respondents: State animal health officials, producers and owners (including feedlot owners), accredited veterinarians, laboratory personnel, and professional appraisers.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 4,574.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 20.

Estimated annual number of responses: 90,453.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 29,514 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, P.L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established. This new fee will be reviewed by the Alaska Region Fee Board prior to a final decision and implementation.

The Tongass National Forest provides multiple cabins located in a variety of forest environments ranging from ocean shore, lakeshore, to mountain and alpine settings. These cabins serve as a base camp for forest visitors for hiking, hunting, fishing, OHV riding and nature touring activities. These cabins are important for access and maintaining traditional recreation activities, including subsistence hunting and fishing.

The Deep Bay Cabin is fully accessible and includes a wheelchair ramp from the parking lot to the cabin. It is a large group cabin and can accommodate up to 12 people. It consists of two buildings connected by a large deck which is partially covered. Each building has sleeping rooms and a common room. There are oil stoves for heat (not cooking). There is a small storage shed, an outside fire grill, and outhouse. It is a simple facility, with no electricity, trash service or running water. The cabin is located near Deep Bay on Zarembo Island. It is accessible year-around by float plane or boat.

A cabin rental analysis performed in 2015 for the cabins in the Alaska Region has shown that people desire having this type of recreation experience on the Tongass National Forest. The proposed $75 per night cabin rental fee for Deep Bay Cabin is consistent with the fee charged at the only other large group cabin on the Tongass National Forest and is both reasonable and acceptable for this sort of unique recreation experience. People interested in renting the facility will need to go through the National Recreation Reservation Service, at www.recreation.gov or by calling 1-877-444-6777. The National Recreation Reservation Service charges a $9 fee for online reservations and a $10 fee for phone in reservations.

The draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected March of 2017, and the final Environmental Impact Statement is expected June of 2017.

The purpose of the proposed project is to provide reliable, year-round vehicular access to the developable portions of Berlaimont's private inholding property.

The need for the proposed project is that the existing NSFRs may not provide adequate access to secure reasonable use and enjoyment of the Berlaimont's property, to which they assert they are entitled under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).

The Proposed Action is to grant an easement to Berlaimont to improve (pave), utilize, and maintain segments of the existing NFSR 774 (1.04 miles) and NFSR 780 (3.09 miles), which grants access to the southeastern corner of the property only.

An alternative will also be analyzed that includes the proposed action with the addition of constructing, utilizing, and maintaining a new road segment (1.16 miles) across NFS lands in order to access the northern portion of the subject property.

The Responsible Official is Mr. Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor, c/o Matt Klein, Realty Specialist, White River National Forest, P.O. Box 190, Minturn, CO 81645.

Based on the analysis that will be documented in the forthcoming EIS, the Responsible Official will decide whether or not to implement, in whole or in part, the Proposed Action or another alternative that may be developed by the Forest Service as a result of scoping.

This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Forest Service is soliciting comments from Federal, State and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by implementation of the proposed project. Public questions and comments regarding this proposal are an integral part of this environmental analysis process. Input provided by interested and/or affected individuals, organizations and governmental agencies will be used to identify alternative actions and resource issues that will be analyzed in the EIS. The Forest Service will identify significant issues raised during the scoping process, and use them to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures and project design features, or analyze environmental effects.

A public open house meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 7th, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Edwards facility for Eagle County EMS/Paramedics (1055 Edwards Village Blvd., Edwards, CO 81632). The meeting will be held in the classroom. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

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

There will be an additional opportunity to comment when the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS is published in the Federal Register. For objection eligibility, each individual or representative from each entity submitting written comments must either sign the comment or verify identity upon request. Individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to object must meet the information requirements in 36 CFR 218.25(a)(3).

Section 1323(a) of the ANILCA statute (incorporated into 36 CFR Subpart D) compels the agency to authorize access to non-Federal land within the boundaries of NFS lands [i.e. inholdings], to the extent that such access is adequate for providing reasonable use and enjoyment of that inholding consistent with other, similiarly situated non-Federal lands.

In addition to providing reasonable use and enjoyment, 36 CFR Subpart D requires that any authorized access route be located and constructed so as to minimize damage or disturbance to NFS lands and resources.

Consequently, a key issue for this project is to determine what route location(s) and level of construction are necessary in order to achieve “adequate access” for “reasonable use and enjoyment” of the applicant's inholding property.

This Proposed Action considers the issuance of a road easement from the Forest Service to Berlaimont under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this early state, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft Environmental Impact Statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's positions and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft Environmental Impact Statement stage but that are not raised until after completion the final Environmental Impact Statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft Environmental Impact Statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Background: The CINTAC was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), in response to an identified need for consensus advice from U.S. industry to the U.S. Government regarding the development and administration of programs to expand United States exports of civil nuclear goods and services in accordance with applicable U.S. laws and regulations, including advice on how U.S. civil nuclear goods and services export policies, programs, and activities will affect the U.S. civil nuclear industry's competitiveness and ability to participate in the international market.

Topics to be considered: The agenda for the Friday, September 2, 2016 CINTAC meeting is as follows: DOC's Civil Nuclear Trade Initiative Update.

Public attendance is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 26, 2016 in order to pre-register. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.

A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 30 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 26, 2016. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.

Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 26, 2016. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens if certain findings are made and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill marine mammals. We, NMFS, have been delegated the authority to issue such regulations and Authorizations.

With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines harassment as “(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B harassment].”

Authorization may be granted for periods of five years or less if we find that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for certain subsistence uses. In addition, we must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. The regulations also must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.

Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar are in effect through August 15, 2017 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and are codified at 50 CFR part 218, subpart X. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental taking of marine mammals by the SURTASS LFA sonar system. For detailed information on this action, please refer to the August 20, 2012, Federal Register Notice and 50 CFR part 218, subpart X. Under those regulations, we must publish a notice of issuance of an Authorization or Authorization renewal in the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.

On April 5, 2016 we received an application from the Navy requesting a renewal of four Authorizations, originally issued on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 51969, August 28, 2012) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar in the western and central North Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean under the regulations issued on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012): one for the United States Naval Ship (USNS) VICTORIOUS (T-AGOS 19), one for the USNS ABLE (T-AGOS 20), one for the USNS EFFECTIVE (T-AGOS 21), and one for the USNS IMPECCABLE (T-AGOS 23). NMFS considered the Navy's application as adequate and complete on May 2, 2016.

NMFS has renewed the first cohort of 2012 Authorizations on an annual basis in 2013 (78 FR 57368, September 18, 2013); 2014 (79 FR 49501, August 21, 2014); and again in 2015 (80 FR 48296). The Navy's 2016 application for renewal requests that these four Authorizations become effective on August 15, 2016, for a period not to exceed one year.

The Navy submitted quarterly mission reports for the periods of August 2015 through May 2016 within the required timeframes. These quarterly reports include the dates and times of the military readiness activities; location of each SURTASS LFA sonar vessel; mission operational area; marine mammal observations; and records of any delays or suspensions of sonar operations. The Navy must also report on the number of marine mammals detected by visual, passive, and active acoustic monitoring and the estimated percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level A and Level B harassment. The reports indicate the following:

• The Navy conducted a total of eight missions from August 15, 2015, through May 14, 2016, in the northwestern Pacific Ocean, which totaled 20.56 mission days and resulted in 37.1 hours of LFA sonar transmissions (2.9% of the permitted sonar transmission time).

• The total percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level B harassment has not exceeded the 12 percent cap. For each stock, the percentage of take was well below the levels authorized in the 2015 Authorizations.

• The total percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level A harassment has not exceeded the levels authorized in the 2015 Authorizations. In fact, the Navy reported no incidences of Level A harassment takes.

The operational tempo, number of active transmission hours, marine mammal detections, behavioral observations, and level of anticipated take of marine mammals fall within the scope and nature of those contemplated by the final rule and authorized in the 2015 Authorizations.

The Navy has submitted the monitoring reports on time as required under 50 CFR 218.236 and the 2015 Authorizations. We have reviewed these reports and determined them to be acceptable. Based on these reports, the Navy has not exceeded the average annual estimated usage of the four SURTASS LFA sonar systems and remains well within the take authorized. In accordance with the current SURTASS LFA sonar regulations (50 CFR 218.230), the Navy must submit an annual report to us no later than 45 days after the 2015 Authorizations have expired. Upon receipt, we will post the annual report at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm#surtass.

For the 2016 to 2017 Authorization period, the Navy expects to conduct the same type and amount of routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar in the western and central North Pacific and Indian Oceans as they have in the northwest Pacific Ocean and the north-central Pacific Ocean requested under the 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 Authorizations. Similarly, the Navy expects to remain within the annual take estimates analyzed in the final rule. We determined that the level of taking by incidental harassment from the activities described in the Authorizations and supporting application is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the 2012 final rule.

Based on our review of the Navy's quarterly mission reports, the Navy complied with the required visual, passive, and acoustic monitoring measures in the final rule and previous Authorizations. The Navy also followed the required shutdown and other protocols for mitigating impacts to marine mammals while conducting operations.

The Navy is also complying with required measures under 50 CFR 218.236(d) to gain and share information on the species. The Navy reports that they are continuing to work on information transfer, declassification and archiving of ambient noise data from the Navy's Integrated Undersea Surveillance System to the public.

Based on the foregoing information and the Navy's application, we determined that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required under 50 CFR 218.234, .235, and .236 and NMFS' 2013-2014; 2014-2015; and 2015-2016 Authorizations were undertaken and will be undertaken during the period of validity of the renewed 2016-2017 Authorizations.

The final rule and the previous Authorizations include an adaptive management framework that allows us to consider new information and to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) if modifications to mitigation and/or monitoring measures are appropriate and practicable. This framework includes a requirement for an annual meeting between NMFS and the Navy, if either agency deems it necessary.

Section 218.241 of the final rule describes examples of the types of information that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation or monitoring measures, including: (a) Results from the Navy's monitoring from the previous year's operation of SURTASS LFA sonar; (b) compiled results of Navy-funded research and development studies; (c) results from specific stranding investigations; (d) results from general marine mammal and sound research funded by the Navy or other sponsors; and (e) any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not anticipated by these regulations or subsequent Authorizations. None of the information reviewed by NMFS or the Navy resulted in any modifications to the existing mitigation or monitoring measures at this time with the exception of consideration of new information regarding potential OBIAs.

On April 7, 2016, we and the Navy convened a meeting to review and discuss consideration of possible additional Offshore Biologically Important Areas (OBIAs) and modification of existing OBIA boundaries. International and U.S. waters were evaluated to consider newly available peer-reviewed scientific data, information, or survey data on marine areas that may be eligible for consideration as OBIAs. This evaluation also included review of information from the following sources:

• Cetacean and Sound Mapping Working Group Biologically Important Areas (CetMap BIAs);

• Marine Mammal Protected Area Task Force (MMPATF)-identified Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs);

• World Database on Protected Areas (joint program of the International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] and the United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]);

• 2014 United Nations List of Protected Areas;

• Convention on Biological Diversity;

• Marine Protected Areas Global (Wood, 2007);

• Marine Conservation Institute MPAtlas; and

• Cetaceanhabitat.org.

Several areas were identified for consideration. Three of the proposed new OBIAs are in areas authorized under the 2016-2017 Authorizations. However, the Navy agrees to treat these areas as OBIAs and will not transmit SURTASS LFA sonar at received levels above 180 dB SPL (rms) within 0.54 nmi (1 km) of the boundary of these potential OBIAs during the periods of biologically important activities for the purpose of the 2016-2017 Authorizations pending a final decision on their designation. NMFS and Navy will be including a description of the evaluation of these new areas in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and rulemaking process for the new (2017) SURTASS LFA sonar operations.

On July 15, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in NRDC, et al. v. Pritzker, et al., which challenged NMFS' 2012 final rule for SURTASS LFA sonar. The Ninth Circuit had not, however, issued a mandate in that case at the time the LOAs were issued.

On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. In the Federal Register Notice (81 FR 51694), NMFS explained the approach it would take during a transition period, wherein we balance the need to consider this new best available science with the fact that some applicants have already committed time and resources to the development of analyses based on our previous guidance and have constraints that preclude the recalculation of take estimates, as well as where the action is in the agency's decision-making pipeline. In that Notice, we included a non-exhaustive list of factors that would inform the most appropriate approach for considering the new Guidance, including: The scope of effects; how far in the process the applicant has progressed; when the authorization is needed; the cost and complexity of the analysis; and the degree to which the guidance is expected to affect our analysis. In this case, the Navy's SURTASS LFA sonar rule was issued in 2012, this is the last remaining year of activity that will be authorized under this rule, and they need the authorization by August 12th in order to ensure continuity of operations. The SURTASS LFA sonar rule considers the potential for small numbers of cetaceans incurring auditory injury in the effects analysis and, as noted in the Final Rule, the Navy is authorized to take small numbers of cetaceans by Level A harassment as a precautionary measure even though quantitative analyses showed no Level A takes. The Navy has a robust and practicable monitoring and mitigation program that we believe is very effective in reducing the likelihood of injury. Additionally, we believe that a fair number of marine mammals will intentionally avoid approaching within distances of this slow-moving source that would result in injury. In summary, we have considered the new Guidance and believe that the likelihood of injury is adequately addressed in the analysis in the rule and appropriate protective measures are in place in the LOA.

We have issued four Authorizations to the Navy, authorizing the incidental harassment of marine mammals, incidental to operating the four SURTASS LFA sonar systems for routine training, testing and use during military operations. Issuance of these four Authorizations is based on findings, described in the preamble to the final rule (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and supported by information contained in the Navy's required reports on SURTASS LFA sonar and their application, that the activities described under these four Authorizations will have a negligible impact on marine mammal species or stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on their availability for taking for subsistence uses.

These Authorizations remain valid through August 14, 2017, provided the Navy remains in conformance with the conditions of the regulations and the LOAs, and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in 50 CFR 218.230 through 218.241 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and in the Authorizations are undertaken.

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens if certain findings are made and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill marine mammals. We, NMFS, have been delegated the authority to issue such regulations and Authorizations.

With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines harassment as “(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B harassment].”

Authorization may be granted for periods of five years or less if we find that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for certain subsistence uses. In addition, we must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. The regulations also must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.

Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar are in effect through August 15, 2017 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and are codified at 50 CFR part 218, subpart X. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental taking of marine mammals by the SURTASS LFA sonar system. For detailed information on this action, please refer to the August 20, 2012, Federal Register Notice and 50 CFR part 218, subpart X. Under those regulations, we must publish a notice of issuance of an Authorization or Authorization renewal in the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.

On April 5, 2016 we received an application from the Navy requesting a renewal of four Authorizations, originally issued on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 51969, August 28, 2012) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar in the western and central North Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean under the regulations issued on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012): One for the United States Naval Ship (USNS) VICTORIOUS (T-AGOS 19), one for the USNS ABLE (T-AGOS 20), one for the USNS EFFECTIVE (T-AGOS 21), and one for the USNS IMPECCABLE (T-AGOS 23). NMFS considered the Navy's application as adequate and complete on May 2, 2016.

NMFS has renewed the first cohort of 2012 Authorizations on an annual basis in 2013 (78 FR 57368, September 18, 2013); 2014 (79 FR 49501, August 21, 2014); and again in 2015 (80 FR 48296). The Navy's 2016 application for renewal requests that these four Authorizations become effective on August 15, 2016, for a period not to exceed one year.

The Navy submitted quarterly mission reports for the periods of August 2015 through May 2016 within the required timeframes. These quarterly reports include the dates and times of the military readiness activities; location of each SURTASS LFA sonar vessel; mission operational area; marine mammal observations; and records of any delays or suspensions of sonar operations. The Navy must also report on the number of marine mammals detected by visual, passive, and active acoustic monitoring and the estimated percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level A and Level B harassment. The reports indicate the following:

• The Navy conducted a total of eight missions from August 15, 2015, through May 14, 2016, in the northwestern Pacific Ocean, which totaled 20.56 mission days and resulted in 37.1 hours of LFA sonar transmissions (2.9% of the permitted sonar transmission time).

• The total percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level B harassment has not exceeded the 12 percent cap. For each stock, the percentage of take was well below the levels authorized in the 2015 Authorizations.

• The total percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level A harassment has not exceeded the levels authorized in the 2015 Authorizations. In fact, the Navy reported no incidences of Level A harassment takes.

The operational tempo, number of active transmission hours, marine mammal detections, behavioral observations, and level of anticipated take of marine mammals fall within the scope and nature of those contemplated by the final rule and authorized in the 2015 Authorizations.

The Navy has submitted the monitoring reports on time as required under 50 CFR 218.236 and the 2015 Authorizations. We have reviewed these reports and determined them to be acceptable. Based on these reports, the Navy has not exceeded the average annual estimated usage of the four SURTASS LFA sonar systems and remains well within the take authorized. In accordance with the current SURTASS LFA sonar regulations (50 CFR 218.230), the Navy must submit an annual report to us no later than 45 days after the 2015 Authorizations have expired. Upon receipt, we will post the annual report at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm#surtass.

For the 2016 to 2017 Authorization period, the Navy expects to conduct the same type and amount of routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar in the western and central North Pacific and Indian Oceans as they have in the northwest Pacific Ocean and the north-central Pacific Ocean requested under the 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 Authorizations. Similarly, the Navy expects to remain within the annual take estimates analyzed in the final rule. We determined that the level of taking by incidental harassment from the activities described in the Authorizations and supporting application is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the 2012 final rule.

Based on our review of the Navy's quarterly mission reports, the Navy complied with the required visual, passive, and acoustic monitoring measures in the final rule and previous Authorizations. The Navy also followed the required shutdown and other protocols for mitigating impacts to marine mammals while conducting operations.

The Navy is also complying with required measures under 50 CFR 218.236(d) to gain and share information on the species. The Navy reports that they are continuing to work on information transfer, declassification and archiving of ambient noise data from the Navy's Integrated Undersea Surveillance System to the public.

Based on the foregoing information and the Navy's application, we determined that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required under 50 CFR 218.234, .235, and .236 and NMFS' 2013-2014; 2014-2015; and 2015-2016 Authorizations were undertaken and will be undertaken during the period of validity of the renewed 2016-2017 Authorizations.

The final rule and the previous Authorizations include an adaptive management framework that allows us to consider new information and to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) if modifications to mitigation and/or monitoring measures are appropriate and practicable. This framework includes a requirement for an annual meeting between NMFS and the Navy, if either agency deems it necessary.

Section 218.241 of the final rule describes examples of the types of information that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation or monitoring measures, including: (a) Results from the Navy's monitoring from the previous year's operation of SURTASS LFA sonar; (b) compiled results of Navy-funded research and development studies; (c) results from specific stranding investigations; (d) results from general marine mammal and sound research funded by the Navy or other sponsors; and (e) any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not anticipated by these regulations or subsequent Authorizations. None of the information reviewed by NMFS or the Navy resulted in any modifications to the existing mitigation or monitoring measures at this time with the exception of consideration of new information regarding potential OBIAs.

On April 7, 2016, we and the Navy convened a meeting to review and discuss consideration of possible additional Offshore Biologically Important Areas (OBIAs) and modification of existing OBIA boundaries. International and U.S. waters were evaluated to consider newly available peer-reviewed scientific data, information, or survey data on marine areas that may be eligible for consideration as OBIAs. This evaluation also included review of information from the following sources:

• Cetacean and Sound Mapping Working Group Biologically Important Areas (CetMap BIAs);

• Marine Mammal Protected Area Task Force (MMPATF)—identified Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs);

• World Database on Protected Areas (joint program of the International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] and the United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]);

• 2014 United Nations List of Protected Areas;

• Convention on Biological Diversity;

• Marine Protected Areas Global (Wood, 2007);

• Marine Conservation Institute MPAtlas; and

• Cetaceanhabitat.org

Several areas were identified for consideration. Three of the proposed new OBIAs are in areas authorized under the 2016-2017 Authorizations. However, the Navy agrees to treat these areas as OBIAs and will not transmit SURTASS LFA sonar at received levels above 180 dB SPL (rms) within 0.54 nmi (1 km) of the boundary of these potential OBIAs during the periods of biologically important activities for the purpose of the 2016-2017 Authorizations pending a final decision on their designation. NMFS and Navy will be including a description of the evaluation of these new areas in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and rulemaking process for the new (2017) SURTASS LFA sonar operations.

On July 15, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in NRDC, et al. v. Pritzker, et al., which challenged NMFS' 2012 final rule for SURTASS LFA sonar. The Ninth Circuit had not, however, issued a mandate in that case at the time the LOAs were issued.

On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. In the Federal Register Notice (81 FR 51694), NMFS explained the approach it would take during a transition period, wherein we balance the need to consider this new best available science with the fact that some applicants have already committed time and resources to the development of analyses based on our previous guidance and have constraints that preclude the recalculation of take estimates, as well as where the action is in the agency's decision-making pipeline. In that Notice, we included a non-exhaustive list of factors that would inform the most appropriate approach for considering the new Guidance, including: the scope of effects; how far in the process the applicant has progressed; when the authorization is needed; the cost and complexity of the analysis; and the degree to which the guidance is expected to affect our analysis. In this case, the Navy's SURTASS LFA sonar rule was issued in 2012, this is the last remaining year of activity that will be authorized under this rule, and they need the authorization by August 12th in order to ensure continuity of operations. The SURTASS LFA sonar rule considers the potential for small numbers of cetaceans incurring auditory injury in the effects analysis and, as noted in the Final Rule, the Navy is authorized to take small numbers of cetaceans by Level A harassment as a precautionary measure even though quantitative analyses showed no Level A takes. The Navy has a robust and practicable monitoring and mitigation program that we believe is very effective in reducing the likelihood of injury. Additionally, we believe that a fair number of marine mammals will intentionally avoid approaching within distances of this slow-moving source that would result in injury. In summary, we have considered the new Guidance and believe that the likelihood of injury is adequately addressed in the analysis in the rule and appropriate protective measures are in place in the LOA.

We have issued four Authorizations to the Navy, authorizing the incidental harassment of marine mammals, incidental to operating the four SURTASS LFA sonar systems for routine training, testing and use during military operations. Issuance of these four Authorizations is based on findings, described in the preamble to the final rule (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and supported by information contained in the Navy's required reports on SURTASS LFA sonar and their application, that the activities described under these four Authorizations will have a negligible impact on marine mammal species or stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on their availability for taking for subsistence uses.

These Authorizations remain valid through August 14, 2017, provided the Navy remains in conformance with the conditions of the regulations and the LOAs, and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in 50 CFR 218.230 through 218.241 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and in the Authorizations are undertaken.

The STT and MEW will discuss items on the Pacific Council's September 2016 meeting agenda. Major topics include, but are not limited to, Salmon Methodology Review and the Sacramento River Winter Chinook Harvest Control Rule Update. The STT and MEW may also address one or more of the Council's scheduled Administrative Matters. Public comments during the webinar will be received from attendees at the discretion of the STT and MEW Chairs.

Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

In accordance with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), a Permanent Advisory Committee, or PAC, has been convened to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the WCPFC, certain members of which have been appointed by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the U.S. Commissioners to the WCPFC. The PAC supports the work of the U.S. National Section to the WCPFC in an advisory capacity. The U.S. National Section is made up of the U.S. Commissioners and the Department of State. NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office provides administrative and technical support to the PAC in cooperation with the Department of State. The next regular annual session of the WCPFC (WCPFC13) is scheduled to be held December 5-December 9, 2016, in Fiji. More information on this meeting and the WCPFC, established under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, can be found on the WCPFC Web site: http://wcpfc.int/.

The PAC meeting topics may include the following: (1) Outcomes of the 2015 Annual Meeting and 2016 sessions of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, Northern Committee, and Technical and Compliance Committee; (2) conservation and management measures for bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna and other species for 2017 and beyond; (3) potential U.S. proposals to WCPFC13; (4) input and advice from the PAC on issues that may arise at WCPFC13; (5) potential proposals from other WCPFC members; and (6) other issues.

The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Emily Crigler at (808) 725-5036 by September 15, 2016.

The purpose of the meeting is to create a Fishery Performance Report by the Council's Spiny Dogfish Advisory Panel. The intent of the report is to facilitate structured input from the Advisory Panel members into the specifications process. Spiny dogfish specifications were recently announced for the 2016-18 fishing years, but the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review the performance of multi-year specifications each year.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Background: NTIA regularly seeks public input to help guide future action and policy decisions that address today's critical communications and technology issues. In this notice, NTIA seeks input concerning the adoption and deployment of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). Every device that connects to the Internet requires an IP address. However, the tremendous demand for Internet connections has, for all intents and purposes, exhausted the supply of IP addresses available under the legacy Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) system. IPv6 is the next-generation protocol which provides an identification and location system for computers on networks, and which routes traffic across the Internet.

The transition to IPv6, which was designed to expand the number of IP addresses, is critical for the continued, sustainable growth of the Internet. While IPv4 provides nearly 4.3 billion IP addresses, IPv6 offers 2128 (or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 IP addresses), a number more able to meet the rising demand for Internet connections and to support the expanding Internet of Things. This demand will continue to grow as more devices come online.

Even during the relatively early days of the Internet, its exponential growth soon exposed the limitations of IPv4. Once the Internet technical community realized in the early 1990s that there would be a shortage of IP addresses, the Internet Engineering Task Force began developing a new protocol to expand the Internet address space. The first specification of the IPv6 standard was published in 1995 and an updated draft followed closely thereafter in 1998.1 Despite the long history of IPv6, today only 32 percent of the Internet services in the United States are IPv6 capable.2 While the IPv6 adoption rate in the United States is growing at a quicker pace than in the past, companies and other organizations that have yet to plan for IPv6 should begin implementation now rather than later, in order to lay a solid foundation for the future of our digital economy.

NTIA IPv6 Promotional Efforts: NTIA is already engaged in IPv6 promotional efforts. NTIA held a public workshop on IPv6 in 2010, and in 2011 developed the IPv6 Readiness Tool for Businesses, a comprehensive checklist for businesses preparing to deploy IPv6.3 NTIA also joined a number of private and public organizations in 2011 for the Internet Society's World IPv6 Day to test the IPv6 functionality of Web sites and services.

Moving forward, NTIA intends to engage more directly in promoting IPv6 deployment and use, with a particular focus on implementation. To assist in this purpose, NTIA is asking those who have implemented IPv6 to share their experiences and to highlight in particular the factors and circumstances that supported their decision to move ahead and adopt the protocol. NTIA hopes to utilize input received through this request for comments to guide and inform future promotion efforts, including the IPv6 Best Practice Forum being organized for the 2016 Internet Governance Forum, which will be held in December 2016, in Guadalajara, Mexico.4

NTIA invites comment on the following questions, in whole or in part:

1. What are the benefits of implementing IPv6? For example, what are the direct performance benefits of implementing IPv6 for end users, or for enhanced network security, as compared to IPv4?

2. What are the expected or unexpected benefits of implementing IPv6?

1. What are the biggest obstacles related to IPv6 implementation? For example, is it difficult to access adequate vendor support for IPv6 hardware and/or software? Does successful implementation depend directly on another service provider?

2. How does an organization overcome those obstacles?

1. What factors contribute to an organization's decision to implement IPv6?

2. What additional incentives would be helpful in a decision to implement IPv6?

3. If one factor made the crucial difference in deciding to implement IPv6, as opposed to not implementing IPv6, what is that factor?

1. What is typically the driving motivation behind an organization's decision to implement IPv6?

2. What are the job titles and/or roles of the people within an organization typically involved in a decision to implement IPv6? What are those individuals' primary motivations when it comes to implementing IPv6?

1. What is the anticipated return on an IPv6-related investment? How quickly is a return on investment expected?

2. Is return on investment a reason to implement IPv6, or is implementation considered a cost of doing business?

1. How long does the planning process for IPv6 implementation take?

2. How long does actual implementation of IPv6 typically take? Is implementation a single event or evolutionary?

1. What are the different types of costs involved in implementing IPv6? What are the typical magnitudes of each type of cost?

2. How does an organization cover those costs?

3. How does an organization justify those costs?

4. What considerations are there for cost-saving?

5. What implication does the size of an organization implementing IPv6 have on cost?

1. What promotional efforts, if any, should NTIA take? What would have the most impact?

2. What promotional efforts, if any, are being led by the private sector? Have they been effective?

3. Which additional stakeholders should NTIA target? What is the most effective forum?

4. Should NTIA partner with any particular stakeholder group?

Additional Issues: NTIA invites commenters to provide any additional information on other issues not identified in this RFC that could contribute to NTIA's understanding of the considerations that organizations take into account when deciding to proceed with IPv6 implementation, as well as future IPv6 promotional efforts that NTIA may undertake.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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;

• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Propose ways to 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.

A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2016, at Vol. 81, No. 61 FR 17686-17687. This comment period ended May 31, 2016. No public comments were received from this Notice.

Description: This is a new information collection request. This survey was developed to support NCCC performance measurement for use in program development, funding, and evaluation. The survey instrument will be completed by NCCC Members following the completion of their service term. In particular, this survey will be administered to NCCC Members who are exiting early or have already exited early from the AmeriCorps NCCC program. Completion of this information collection is not required for the completion of a service term with NCCC.

Type of Review: New.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: NCCC Member Experience Survey.

OMB Number: TBD.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: The NCCC Member Experience Survey will be administered to former NCCC Members.

Total Respondents: Approximately 450.

Frequency: Each respondent will complete only one survey for their most recent service term.

Average Time per Response: 25 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 187.5 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

The Souris River (alternatively known as the Mouse River) is approximately 435 miles long. The river begins in the southeastern portion of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, flows south and east through Renville, Ward, McHenry, and Bottineau counties, North Dakota, and then turns north before returning to Canada in southwest Manitoba. The river flows through the cities of Burlington, Minot, Sawyer, and Velva, North Dakota. Key features associated with the river include the Lake Darling Dam, the Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge, and the J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge. The Des Lacs River is a major tributary that joins the Souris River at Burlington, North Dakota.

The purpose of this study is to collect and evaluate pertinent engineering, economic, social, and environmental information in order to assess the potential for a federal flood risk management project within the basin. The study objective is to define a feasible and implementable project to reduce flood risk which is relatively high within the basin. In June 2011, heavy rains in the upstream portions of the watershed exceeded the storage capacity of upstream reservoirs already full from the April snowmelt. Flows in excess of 26,900 cubic feet per second (cfs) overwhelmed the existing Federal flood risk management projects (designed to pass 5,000 cfs from Burlington to Minot) and emergency flood fighting efforts, causing over $690 million in damages to more than 4,700 structures.

Following the 2011 flood, a non-Federal local flood risk management study was initiated by the North Dakota State Water Commission in response to a request for assistance from the SRJB. The scope of the non-Federal study, identified as the Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Plan (MREFPP), differs from the Federal study and is primarily focused on flood protection specifically for the city of Minot. Because of its influence on an existing federal flood project, this non-federal effort has requested permission from the Corps of Engineers to pursue actions under 33 U.S.C. 408 (frequently referred to as Section 408). A separate Notice of Intent was published (FR Doc. 2015-17670 Filed 7-16-15) for an EIS associated with the Corps of Engineers' decision on the Section 408 request. However, this Notice of Intent involves an EIS with broader consideration of flood risk across the basin. Additional details on the local, non-federal flood MREFPP can be found at mouseriverplan.com.

This Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study and its associated NEPA documentation will be prepared by the Corps. The Corps will act as the lead agency and coordinate with other agencies to discuss their participation in the NEPA process. The study will broadly evaluate several alternative measures including, but not limited to: levees and floodwalls along the river through towns, diversion channels, non-structural flood-proofing, relocation of flood-prone structures, and flood storage.

Significant resources and issues to be addressed in the draft Environmental Impact Statement will be determined through coordination with Federal agencies, State agencies, local governments, the general public, interested private organizations, and industry. Anyone who has an interest in participating in the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is invited to contact the St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers.

To date, the following areas of discussion have been identified for inclusion in the DEIS:

1. Flood damage reduction.

2. Effects to Fish and wildlife.

3. Land-use Effects (effects on agricultural land).

4. Effects to Archaeological, cultural, and historic resources.

5. Social Effects.

6. Effects to Groundwater.

Additional areas of interest may be identified through the scoping process, which will include pubic and agency meetings. A notice of those meetings will be provided to interested parties and to local news media.

The Corps anticipates holding a series of scoping meetings sometime in October, 2016 in the City of Minot and surrounding communities. In general, the meetings will begin with an open house and be followed by a presentation and question and answer session.

An environmental review will be conducted under the NEPA of 1969 and other applicable laws and regulations. It is anticipated that the DEIS will be available for public review in the fall of 2017.

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

Tentative Agenda:

Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Oak Ridge, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Melyssa P. Noe at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda item should contact Melyssa P. Noe at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Melyssa P. Noe at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: www.energy.gov/orssab.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

1. File Symbol: 84059-EI. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0386. Applicant: Marrone Bio Innovations, 1540 Drew Ave., Davis, CA 95618. Product name: MBI-110 EP. Active ingredient: Fungicide and bactericide—Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain F727 at 96.4%. Proposed use: For control or suppression of fungal and bacterial plant diseases, including those affecting agricultural crops.

2. File Symbol: 84059-EO. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0386. Applicant: Marrone Bio Innovations, 1540 Drew Ave., Davis, CA 95618. Product name: MBI-110 TGAI. Active ingredient: Fungicide and bactericide—Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain F727 at 100%. Proposed use: For manufacturing of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain F727 pesticide products.

3. File Symbol: 90866-EN. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0260. Applicant: Spring Trading Co., 203 Dogwood Trl., Magnolia, TX 77354 (on behalf of CH Biotech R&D Co. Ltd., No. 121 Xian An Rd., Xianxi Township, Changhua County 50741 Taiwan). Product name: Triacontanol 20 SP. Active ingredient: Plant regulator—1-Triacontanol at 19.2%. Proposed use: For use on agricultural crops, including cereal grains, fruiting vegetables, stone fruit, nut crops, and cotton.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

1. File number: 7969-GIO (Versys Insecticide; Decision No. 516387). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0416. Company name and address: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active ingredient: Afidopyropen. Proposed uses: Almond hulls; apple, wet pomace; citrus oil; cotton, gin byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11-10; fruit, stone, group 12-12; nut, tree, group 14-12; plum, prune; soybean, aspirated fractions; soybean, forage; soybean, hay; soybean, seed; vegetable, Brassica, head and stem group 5-13; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10; vegetable, leaf petioles, subgroup 22B; vegetable, leafy, subgroup 4-13A; vegetable, leafy, subgroup 4-13B; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C. Contact: Carmen Rodia (703) 306-0327; email: [email protected]

2. File number: 7969-GON (INSCALIS Technical Insecticide; Decision No. 516381). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0416. Company name and address: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active ingredient: Afidopyropen. Proposed uses: Almond hulls; apple, wet pomace; citrus oil; cotton, gin byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11-10; fruit, stone, group 12-12; nut, tree, group 14-12; plum, prune; soybean, aspirated fractions; soybean, forage; soybean, hay; soybean, seed; vegetable, Brassica, head and stem group 5-13; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10; vegetable, leaf petioles, subgroup 22B; vegetable, leafy, subgroup 4-13A; vegetable leafy, subgroup 4-13B; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C. Contact: Carmen Rodia (703) 306-0327; email: [email protected]

3. File number: 7969-GOR (Sefina Insecticide; Decision No. 516382). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0416. Company name and address: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active ingredient: Afidopyropen. Proposed uses: Almond hulls; apple, wet pomace; citrus oil; cotton, gin byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11-10; fruit, stone, group 12-12; nut, tree, group 14-12; plum, prune; soybean, aspirated fractions; soybean, forage; soybean, hay; soybean, seed; vegetable, Brassica, head and stem group 5-13; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10; vegetable, leaf petioles, subgroup 22B; vegetable, leafy, subgroup 4-13A; vegetable leafy, subgroup 4-13B; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C. Contact: Carmen Rodia (703) 306-0327; email: rodia.carm[email protected]

4. File number: 7969-GOE (Inveris Insecticide; Decision No. 516384). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0416. Company name and address: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active ingredient: Afidopyropen. Proposed uses: Almond hulls; apple, wet pomace; citrus oil; cotton, gin byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11-10; fruit, stone, group 12-12; nut, tree, group 14-12; plum, prune; soybean, aspirated fractions; soybean, forage; soybean, hay; soybean, seed; vegetable, Brassica, head and stem group 5-13; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10; vegetable, leaf petioles, subgroup 22B; vegetable, leafy, subgroup 4-13A; vegetable leafy, subgroup 4-13B; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C. Contact: Carmen Rodia (703) 306-0327; email: [email protected].

5. File number: 7969-GOG (Ventigra Insecticide; Decision No. 516386). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0416. Company name and address: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active ingredient: Afidopyropen. Proposed uses: Almond hulls; apple, wet pomace; citrus oil; cotton, gin byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11-10; fruit, stone, group 12-12; nut, tree, group 14-12; plum, prune; soybean, aspirated fractions; soybean, forage; soybean, hay; soybean, seed; vegetable, Brassica, head and stem group 5-13; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10; vegetable, leaf petioles, subgroup 22B; vegetable, leafy, subgroup 4-13A; vegetable leafy, subgroup 4-13B; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C. Contact: Carmen Rodia (703) 306-0327; email: [email protected].

6. File number: 42750-GRR (Hexythiazox 1E; Decision No. 517092). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0339. Company name and address: Albraugh, LLC, P.O. Box 2127, Valdosta, GA 31604-2127. Active ingredient: Hexythiazox. Proposed uses: Alfalfa (West of the Rockies); beans, dry and succulent (Western United States only); citrus (CA, AZ and TX only); corn, field; corn, sweet (including ears and forage) (Western United States only); cotton (CA, AZ and TX only); Christmas tree, Christmas tree plantations; greenhouse tomatoes; non-bearing tree fruits and nuts, citrus, and vines (field grown and nursery); pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B; pome fruit group 11-10; potatoes (OR, WA and ID only); small fruit, vine climbing subgroup, except fuzzy kiwifruit 13-07F; sorghum (Western United States only, including OK and TX); stone fruits group, including plum; timothy (West of the Rockies); and tree nuts group and pistachios. Contact: Carmen Rodia (703) 306-0327; email: [email protected].

7. File number: 42750-GRE (Hexythiazox Technical; Decision No. 517095-2). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0339. Company name and address: Albraugh, LLC, P.O. Box 2127, Valdosta, GA 31604-2127. Active ingredient: Hexythiazox. Proposed uses: Alfalfa (West of the Rockies); beans, dry and succulent (Western United States only); citrus (CA, AZ and TX only); corn, field; corn, sweet (including ears and forage) (Western United States only); cotton (CA, AZ and TX only); Christmas tree, Christmas tree plantations; greenhouse tomatoes; non-bearing tree fruits and nuts, citrus, and vines (field grown and nursery); pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B; pome fruit group 11-10; potatoes (OR, WA, and ID only); small fruit, vine climbing subgroup, except fuzzy kiwifruit 13-07F; sorghum (Western United States only, including OK and TX); stone fruits group, including plum; timothy (West of the Rockies); and tree nuts group and pistachios. Contact: Katelynn King (703) 347-0193; email: [email protected].

8. File number: 91234-RO (A103.02; Decision No. 518428). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0452. Company name and address: Atticus, LLC., c/o Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., 4110 136th Street, Gig Harbor, WA 98332. Active ingredient: Chlorfenapyr. Proposed uses: Fruiting vegetables and ornamental crops grown in commercial greenhouses. Contact: Carmen Rodi (703) 306-0327; email: [email protected].

1. Registration number: 71512-7 (Technical Flonicamid Insecticide; Decision No. 513683). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0985. Company name and address: ISK Bioscience Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Active ingredient: Flonicamid. Proposed uses: Citrus. Contact: Carmen Rodia (703) 306-0327; email: [email protected].

2. Registration number: 71512-9 (Flonicamid 50WG; Decision No. 513688). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0985. Company name and address: ISK Bioscience Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Active ingredient: Flonicamid. Proposed use: Citrus. Contact: Carmen Rodia (703) 306-0327; email: [email protected].

3. Registration number: 71512-10 (Beleaf 50SG Insecticide; Decision No. 513685). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0985. Company name and address: ISK Bioscience Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Active ingredient: Flonicamid. Proposed use: Citrus. Contact: Carmen Rodia (703) 306-0327; email: [email protected].

4. Registration number: 71512-14 (Flonicamid 50WG for Manufacturing and Repacking Use Only; Decision No. 513684). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0985. Company name and address: ISK Bioscience Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Active ingredient: Flonicamid. Proposed use: Citrus. Contact: Carmen Rodia (703) 306-0327; email: [email protected].

5. Pesticide Petition: 6E8466 (Decision No. 516183). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0029. Company name and address: Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366-5569. Active ingredient: Fenazaquin. Proposed use: Import tolerance on tea and pineapple. Contact: Carmen Rodia (703) 306-0327; email: [email protected].

6. Pesticide Petition: 6E8463 (Decision No. 515700). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0099. Company name and address: Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808-2951. Active ingredient: Flubendiamide. Proposed use: Import tolerance on dried tea. Contact: Carmen Rodia (703) 306-0327; email: [email protected].

7. Registration number: 10163-277 (Onager Miticide). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0038. Company name and address: Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366-5569. Active ingredient: Hexythiazox. Proposed use: Hops. Contact: Katelynn King (703) 347-0193; email: [email protected].

8. Registration number: 10163-337 (Onager EW). Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0038. Company name and address: Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366-5569. Active ingredient: Hexythiazox. Proposed use: Hops. Contact: Katelynn King (703) 347-0193; email: [email protected].

General Information: EPA is proposing to reissue two general permits for discharges from sites engaged in remediation activities from eight general categories: (1) Petroleum-related site remediation; (2) Non-petroleum-related site remediation; (3) Contaminated/formerly contaminated site dewatering; (4) Pipeline and tank dewatering; (5) Aquifer pump testing; (6) Well development/rehabilitation; (7) Dewatering/remediation of collection structures; and (8) Dredge-related dewatering. While the draft general permits are two distinct permits, for convenience, EPA has grouped them together in a single document and has provided a single fact sheet. This document refers to the draft general “permit” in the singular. The draft general permit, appendices and fact sheet are available at: http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/rgp.html. The draft general permit includes effluent limitations and requirements based on technology-based considerations, best professional judgment (BPJ), and water quality considerations. The effluent limits established in the draft general permit assure that the surface water quality standards of the receiving water(s) are attained and/or maintained. The permit also contains BMP requirements in order to ensure EPA has the information necessary to ensure compliance and to ensure discharges meet water quality standards.

Obtaining Authorization: In order to obtain authorization to discharge, operators must submit a complete and accurate NOI containing the information in Appendix IV—Part 1 of the draft general permit. Operators with existing discharges must submit a NOI within 90 days of the effective date of the final general permit. Operators with new discharges must submit a NOI at least 30 days prior to initiating discharges and following the effective date of the final general permit. The effective date of the final general permit will be specified in the Federal Register publication of the Notice of Availability of the final permit. Operators must meet the eligibility requirements of the general permit prior to submission of a NOI. An operator will be authorized to discharge under the general permit upon receipt of written notice from EPA following EPA's web posting of the submitted NOI. EPA will authorize the discharge, request additional information, or require the operator to apply for an alternative permit or an individual permit.

Other Legal Requirements: Endangered Species Act (ESA): EPA has updated the provisions and necessary actions and documentation related to potential impacts to endangered species from facilities seeking coverage under the RGP. EPA has requested concurrence from the appropriate federal services (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service) in connection with this draft general permit.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): In accordance with NHPA, EPA has established provisions and documentation requirements for sites seeking coverage under the RGP to ensure that discharges or actions taken under this general permit will not adversely affect historic properties and places.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a federal or state agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The Washington State Department of Agriculture has requested the EPA Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on asparagus to control the European asparagus aphid. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.

The applicant's submission which provides an explanation of the need for the exemption as well as the proposed use pattern can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in their section 18 emergency exemption request for use of lambda-cyhalothrin on asparagus to control the European asparagus aphid.

This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing a use which is supported by the IR-4 program and has been requested in 5 or more previous years, and a petition for tolerance has not yet been submitted to the Agency.

The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application. The Agency will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the Washington State Department of Agriculture.

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

1. EPA Registration Numbers: 264-1049, 264-1050, 264-1065. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-OPP-2016-0255. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709. Active ingredient: Spirotetramat. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Carrot. Contact: RD.

2. EPA Registration Numbers: 264-1049, 264-1050, 264-1051, 264-1065. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-OPP-2016-0255. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709. Active ingredient: Spirotetramat. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed uses: Sugar beet, bushberry subgroup low growing berry (crop subgroups 13-07B and 13-07H). Contact: RD.

3. EPA Registration Number: 2724-804. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0342. Applicant: Wellmark International; 1501 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 200 West; Schaumburg, IL 60173. Active ingredient: Piperonyl butoxide. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Fungi, edible, group 21. Contact: RD.

4. EPA Registration Numbers: 42750-85 and 42750-169. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0384. Applicant: Albaugh, LLC, P.O. Box 2127, Valdosta, GA 31604. Active ingredient: Quinclorac. Product type: Herbicide. Proposed uses: Bushberries, caneberries, and asparagus. Contact: RD.

5. EPA Registration Number: 89459-19. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0342. Applicant: Central Garden and Pet Company; 1501 East Woodfield Road, Suite 200W; Schaumburg, IL 60173. Active ingredient: Piperonyl butoxide. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Fungi, edible, group 21. Contact: RD.

6. File Symbol: 6218-IT. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0165. Applicant: Summit Chemical Co., 235 S. Kresson St., Baltimore, MD 21224-2616. Active ingredient: Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies israelensis strain SUM-6218. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: To control mosquito larvae outdoors, indoors, and in residential areas and psychodid fly larvae in wastewater treatment plants. Contact: BPPD.

7. File Symbol: 7173-GNL. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0420. Applicant: Liphatech, 3600 West Elm St., Milwaukee, WI 53209. Active ingredient: Chlorophacinone. Product type: Rodenticide. Proposed use: California ground squirrels. Contact: RD.

8. File Symbol: 42750-GRG. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0360. Applicant: Albaugh, LLC, P.O. Box 2127, Valdosta, GA 31604. Active ingredient: quizalofop-P-ethyl. Product type: Herbicide. Proposed use: Herbicide-tolerant wheat. Contact: RD.

I. Procedures for Reaching a Final Permit Decision

Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.13, any person who believes any condition of the permit is inappropriate must raise all reasonably ascertainable issues and submit all reasonably available arguments in full, supporting their position, by the close of the comment period. All comments on the Draft NPDES general permit and the Draft EA received within the 30-day comment period will be considered in the formulation of final determination regarding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and the permit reissuance. After consideration of all written comments and the requirements and policies in the CWA and appropriate regulations, the EPA Regional Administrator will make a determination regarding the Final EA, Finding of No Significant Impact, and permit reissuance. If the determination results in a permit that is substantially unchanged from the draft permit announced by this notice, the Regional Administrator will so notify all persons submitting written comments. If the determination results in a permit that is substantially changed, the Regional Administrator will issue a public notice indicating the revised determination.

A formal hearing is available to challenge any NPDES permit issued according to the regulations at 40 CFR 124.15 and 124.19, except for a general permit, as provided at 40 CFR 124.19(o). Persons affected by a general permit may not challenge the conditions of a general permit as a right in further Agency proceedings. They may instead either challenge the general permit in court, or apply for an individual permit as authorized at 40 CFR 122.28, in accordance with the application requirements set forth at 40 CFR 122.21, and then request a formal hearing on the issuance or denial of an individual permit. Additional information regarding these procedures is available by contacting Mr. Paul Schwartz, Associate Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, at (404) 562-9576.

Notice of Intent requirements for obtaining coverage for operating facilities are stated in Part I Section A.4 of the general permit. Coverage under the reissued general permit is effective upon receipt of notification of coverage with an assignment of an NPDES general permit number from the EPA-Region 4, Director of the Water Protection Division. EPA will act on the Notice of Intent (NOI) within a reasonable period of time.

This permit does not apply to non-operational leases, i.e., those on which no discharge has taken place in the two (2) years prior to the effective date of the reissued general permit. EPA will not initially accept NOIs for such leases, and the general permit will not cover such leases, except as set forth below. Non-operational leases will lose coverage under the previous general permit on the effective date of the reissued general permit. No subsequent exploration, development or production activities may take place on these leases until and unless the lessee has obtained coverage under the new general permit or an individual permit. EPA will not accept an NOI or individual permit application for non-operational or new acquired leases until such time as an Exploration Plan Document or the Development Operations Coordination Document has been prepared and submitted to Bureau of Energy Management.

Because state waters are not included in the area covered by the OCS general permit, its effluent limitations and monitoring requirements are not subject to state water quality certification under CWA Section 401. However, the states of Alabama, Florida and Mississippi have been provided a copy of this draft general permit, Draft EA to review and submit comments. Copies of these documents have also been provided to EPA Headquarters for their review.

This Notice will also serve as Region 4's requirement under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to provide all necessary information for the States of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to review this action for consistency with their approved Coastal Zone Management Programs. A copy of the consistency determination on the proposed activities is being sent to each affected State, along with a letter including this FR notice, which provides the EPA Web site where electronic copies can be obtained of the Draft NPDES general permit, permit fact sheet, preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, and Draft EA. Other relevant information for their review is available upon request from each State. Comments regarding State Consistency are invited in writing within 30 days of this notice to the WPD, U.S. EPA-Region 4, NPDES Section, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, Attention: Ms. Bridget Staples.

The public comment period for the Draft NPDES permit, Draft EA will begin on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register and end 30 calendar days later.

The Draft NPDES general permit, permit fact sheet, Draft EA and other relevant documents are on file and may be inspected any time between 8:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday at the address shown below. Copies of the Draft NPDES general permit, permit fact sheet, Draft EA and other relevant documents may be obtained by writing the U.S. EPA-Region 4, WPD, NPDES Permitting Section, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, Attention: Ms. Bridget Staples, or by calling (404) 562-9783. Alternatively, copies of the Draft NPDES general permit, permit fact sheet, Draft EA, Essential Fish Habitat Determination and preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation may be downloaded at: http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-epa-region-4-southeast.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health, or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. OMB has exempted review of NPDES general permits under the terms of Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rule making requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Issuance of an NPDES general permit is not subject to rule making requirements, including the requirement for a general notice of proposed rule making, under APA Section 533 or any other law, and is thus not subject to the RFA requirements.

The APA defines two broad, mutually exclusive categories of agency action—“rules” and “orders.” APA Section 551(4) defines rule as “an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice or requirements of an agency . . . ” APA Section 551(6) defines orders as “a final disposition . . . of an agency in a matter other than rule making but including licensing.” APA Section 551(8) defines “license” to “include . . . an agency permit . . . ” The APA thus categorizes a permit as an order, which by the APA's definition is not a rule. Section 553 of the APA establishes “rule making” requirements. APA Section 551(5) defines “rule making” as “the agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” By its terms, Section 553 applies only to rules and not to orders, exempting by definition permits.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their “regulatory actions” to refer to regulations. (See, e.g., UMRA Section 401, “Each agency shall . . . assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions . . . (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law).”) UMRA Section 102 defines “regulation” by reference to 2 U.S.C. 658 which in turn defines “regulation” and “rule” by reference to Section 601(2) of the RFA. That section of the RFA defines “rule” as “any rule for which the agency publishes a notice of proposed rule making pursuant to Section 553(b) of the APA, or any other law.”

As discussed in the RFA section of this notice, NPDES general permits are not “rules” by definition under the APA and thus not subject to the APA requirement to publish a notice of proposed rule making. NPDES general permits are also not subject to such a requirement under the CWA. While EPA publishes a notice to solicit public comment on draft general permits, it does so pursuant to the CWA Section 402(a) requirement to provide an opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, NPDES general permits are not “rules” for RFA or UMRA purposes.

The information collection required by this permit has been approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in submission made for the NPDES permit program and assigned OMB control numbers 2040-0086 (NPDES permit application) and 2040-0004 [(NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)].

Because this permit is very similar in reporting and application requirements and in discharges which are required to be monitored as the previous Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS general permit (GEG460000), the paperwork burdens are expected to be nearly identical. When it issued the previous OCS general permit, EPA estimated it would take an affected facility three hours to prepare the request for coverage and 38 hours per year to prepare DMRs. It is estimated that the time required to prepare the request for coverage and DMRs for the reissued permit will be approximately the same.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0936.

Title: Sections 95.1215, 95.1217, 95.1223 and 95.1225, Medical Device Radiocommunications Service (MedRadio).

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 3,120 respondents; 3,120 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-3 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, third party disclosure requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 9,120 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: The Federal Communications Commission is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve for a period of three years an extension for the information collection requirements contained in this collection.

The information collection requirements that are approved under this information collection are contained in 47 CFR 95.1225(b) and (c), 95.1217(a)(3) and (c), 95.1223 and 95.1225 which relate to the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio).

The information is necessary to allow the coordinator and parties using the database to contact other users to verify information and resolve potential conflicts. Each user is responsible for determining in advance whether new devices are likely to cause or be susceptible to interference from devices already registered in the coordination database.

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, DA 16-720, adopted and released July 1, 2016.

Section 214(a) of the Act prohibits any carrier from constructing, extending, acquiring, or operating any line, and from engaging in transmission through any such line, without first obtaining a certificate of authorization from the Commission. Under Section 214(c) of the Act, the Commission “may attach to the issuance of the certificate such terms and conditions as in its judgment the public convenience and necessity may require.” On July 27, 2007, the International Bureau granted JuBe an international Section 214 authorization to provide global or limited global facility-based service and global or limited global resale service in accordance with Section 63.18(e)(1) and 63.18(e)(2) of the Commission's rules. The International Bureau granted the application on the express condition that JuBe abide by the commitments and undertakings contained in its Letter of Assurance (LOA) to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (collectively, the Executive Branch Agencies) dated July 12, 2007. The LOA outlines a number of commitments made by JuBe to address national security, law enforcement, and public safety concerns.

On December 23, 2015, the Executive Branch Agencies notified the Commission of JuBe's non-compliance with the conditions of its authorization and requested that the Commission terminate, and declare null and void and no longer in effect, the international Section 214 authorization issued to JuBe. The Executive Branch Agencies believe that JuBe is no longer in existence. Specifically, according to the Texas state corporate Web site, JuBe voluntarily dissolved as a corporate entity and became inactive on October 14, 2010. Further, on October 19, 2015, Mr. Thomas Lynch, JuBe's designated point of contact during the application process, advised the Executive Branch Agencies that he had been unable to reach JuBe after multiple attempts through all his contacts except U.S. postal service. He noted that he presumed JuBe to be out of business. Based on this, the Executive Branch Agencies state that “JuBe is neither providing services pursuant to authorization file number ITC-214-20070607-00218 nor still in existence.”

The Commission has made significant efforts to communicate with JuBe, but has also been unable to do so. On January 19, 2016, the International Bureau sent JuBe a letter to the last addresses of record requesting that JuBe respond to the December 23, 2015 Executive Branch letter within 30 days of the letter, by February 18, 2016. JuBe did not respond. Since that time, the International Bureau has provided JuBe with additional opportunities to respond to these allegations. The International Bureau stated that failure to respond would result in termination of JuBe's international Section 214 authorization for failure to comply with conditions of its authorization. In JuBe's 2007 application, JuBe stated it was incorporated in Texas, and according to the Texas Secretary of State Web site, no records exist for JuBe Communications, LLC. To date, JuBe has not responded to any of the International Bureau or the Executive Branch Agencies' multiple requests to resolve this matter.

We determine that JuBe's international Section 214 authorization to provide international services issued under File No. ITC-214-20070607-00218 has terminated for inability to comply with an express condition for holding the international Section 214 authorization. The International Bureau has provided JuBe with notice and opportunity to respond to the allegations in the December 23, 2015 Executive Branch letter concerning JuBe's non-compliance with the condition of the grant. JuBe has not responded to any of our multiple requests or requests from the Executive Branch Agencies. We find that JuBe's failure to respond to our multiple requests demonstrates that it is unable to satisfy the LOA conditions, upon which the Executive Branch Agencies gave their non-objection to the grant of the authorization to JuBe, and which are a condition of the grant of its international Section 214 authorization.

Furthermore, after having received an international Section 214 authorization, a carrier “is responsible for the continuing accuracy of the certifications made in its application” and must promptly correct information no longer accurate, “and in any event, within thirty (30) days.” JuBe has failed to inform the Commission of any changes in its business status of providing international telecommunications services, as required by the rules. In addition, there is no indication that JuBe is currently providing service pursuant to its international Section 214 authorization. If JuBe has discontinued service, it is also in violation of the Commission's rules requiring prior notification for such a discontinuance. Nor is there any record of JuBe having complied with Section 413 of the Act and the Commission's rules requiring it to designate an agent for service after receiving its authorization on July 27, 2007. Finally, as part of its authorization, JuBe “must file annual international telecommunications traffic and revenue as required by § 43.62.” Section 43.62(b) of the Commission's rule states that “[n]ot later than July 31 of each year, each person or entity that holds an authorization pursuant to section 214 to provide international telecommunications service shall report whether it provided international telecommunications services during the preceding calendar year.” Commission records indicate that JuBe failed to file an annual international telecommunications traffic and revenue report indicating whether or not JuBe provided services in 2015, as required by Section 43.62(b). In these circumstances, and in light of JuBe's failure to respond to the Commission's rules designed to ensure its ability to communicate with the holder of the authorization, termination also is warranted wholly apart from demonstrating JuBe's inability to satisfy the LOA conditions of its authorization.

Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 214, and 413 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 214, 413, and Sections 1.47(h), 43.62, 63.18, 63.21, 63.22(h), 63.23(e), and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.47(h), 43.62, 63.18, 63.21, 63.22(h), 63.23(e), 64.1195, that the international 214 authorization issued under File No. ITC-214-20070607-00218 is hereby terminated and declared null and void.

It is further ordered that the request of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is hereby granted, to the extent set forth in this Order.

It is further ordered that a copy of this Order shall be sent by return receipt requested to JuBe Communications, LLC at its last known addresses.

It is further ordered that a copy of this Order, or a summary thereof, shall be published in the Federal Register.

This Order is issued on delegated authority under 47 CFR 0.51, 0.261, and is effective upon release. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.106, or applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.115, may be filed within 30 days of the date of the release of this Order.

The Commission is requesting that OMB approve this revised information collection under the emergency processing provisions of the PRA, 5 CFR 1320.13.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0986.

Title: High-Cost Universal Service Support.

Form Number: FCC Form 481, FCC Form 505, FCC Form 507, FCC Form 508, FCC Form 509, and FCC Form 525.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,977 respondents; 14,109 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours to 100 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly and annual reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 155, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, 410, and 1302.

Total Annual Burden: 274,455 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: This information collection does not affect individuals or households; thus, there are no impacts under the Privacy Act.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: We note that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission.

Needs and Uses: The Federal Communications Commission seeks emergency processing under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 5 CFR 1320.13. The Commission is requesting OMB approval for this revised information collection. In November 2011, the Commission adopted an order reforming its high-cost universal service support mechanisms. Connect America Fund; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future; Establish Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; High-Cost Universal Service Support; Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Lifeline and Link-Up; Universal Service Reform—Mobility Fund, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109; GN Docket No. 09-51; CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45; WT Docket No. 10-208, Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order); and the Commission and Wireline Competition Bureau have since adopted a number of orders that implement the USF/ICC Transformation Order; see also Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Third Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 5622 (2012); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 27 FCC Rcd 605 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2012); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Fifth Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 14549 (2012); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 28 FCC Rcd 2051 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7227 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7766 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7211 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 10488 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 8769 (2014); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 15644 (2014); Modernizing the E-rate Program for Schools and Libraries et al., WC Docket No. 13-184 et al., Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 29 FCC Rcd 15538 (2014). The Commission has received OMB approval for most of the information collections required by these orders. At a later date the Commission plans to submit additional revisions for OMB review to address other reforms adopted in the orders (e.g., 47 CFR 54.313(a)(11)).

In March 2016, the Commission adopted the Rate-of-Return Reform Order to continue modernizing the universal service support mechanisms for rate-of-return carriers. Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order, Order and Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 3087 (2016). The Rate-of-Return Reform Order replaces the Interstate Common Line Support (ICLS) mechanism with the Connect America Fund—Broadband Loop Support (CAF-BLS) mechanism. While ICLS supported only lines used to provide traditional voice service (including voice service bundled with broadband service), CAF-BLS also supports consumer broadband-only loops.

Here, we propose to revise this information collection, specifically FCC Form 507, FCC Form 508, and FCC Form 509, to include additional line count, forecasted cost and revenue, and actual cost and revenue data associated with consumer broadband-only loops necessary for the calculation of CAF-BLS. This revision is a narrow expansion of similar information related to common line loops, costs, and revenues collected pursuant to the existing approval.

The meeting will be held on September 14, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

The CSRIC is a Federal Advisory Committee that will provide recommendations to the FCC regarding best practices and actions the FCC can take to help ensure the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications systems. On March 19, 2015, the FCC, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, renewed the charter for the CSRIC for a period of two years through March 18, 2017. The meeting on September 14, 2016, will be the sixth meeting of the CSRIC under the current charter. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/live. The public may submit written comments before the meeting to Jeffery Goldthorp, CSRIC Designated Federal Officer, by email to [email protected] or U.S. Postal Service Mail to Jeffery Goldthorp, Associate Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room 7-A325, Washington, DC 20554.

Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way the FCC can contact you if it needs more information. Please allow at least five days' advance notice; last-minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection of information (Request for new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Initial Request for State Implemented Moratorium Form; Use: CMS promulgated 42 CFR 424.570 in order to comply with that statute, which requires that prior to implementing state Medicaid moratoria the state Medicaid agency must notify the Secretary in writing, including all of the details of the moratoria, and obtain the Secretary's concurrence with the imposition of the moratoria. The above regulation is promulgated from 1866 (j)(7) of the Social Security Act, which allows for the imposition of temporary moratorium. The Initial Request for State Medicaid Implemented Moratorium, named the “Initial Request for State Medicaid Implemented Moratorium” was created to collect that data, in a uniform manner, which the states report to CMS when they request a moratorium. Currently, CMS is collecting this data on an ad-hoc basis, however this process needs to be standardized so that moratoria decisions are being made based on the same criteria each time.

The goal of the Initial Request for State Medicaid Implemented Moratorium form is to provide a uniform application process that all of the states may follow so that CMS is able to administer the Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program moratorium process in a standardized and repeatable manner. This form creates a standardized process so that moratoria decisions are being made with the same criteria each time. Form Number: CMS-10628 (OMB control number: 0938-NEW); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 15; Total Annual Responses: 15; Total Annual Hours: 75. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Belinda Gravel at 410-786-8934).

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Report on Payables and Receivables; Use: Collection of CHIP data and the calculation of the CHIP Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) estimate are pertinent to CMS' financial audit. Section 2105 of the Social Security Act (Title XXI) requires the Secretary to estimate the amount each State should be paid at the beginning of each quarter. This amount is based on a report filed by the State. Section 2105 of the Social Security Act authorizes the Secretary to pay the amount estimated, reduced or increased to the extent of any overpayment or underpayment for any prior quarter. Section 3515 of the CFO Act requires government agencies to produce auditable financial statements in accordance with Office of Management and Budget guidelines on Form and Content. The Government Management and Reform Act of 1994 requires that all offices, bureaus and associated activities of the 24 CFO Act agencies must be covered in an agency-wide, audited financial statement. Collection of CHIP data and the calculation of the CHIP Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) estimate are pertinent to CMS' financial audit. The CHIP Report on Payables and Receivables will provide the information needed to calculate the CHIP IBNR. Failure to collect this information could result in non-compliance with the law. Program expenditures for the CHIP have increased since its inception; as such, CHIP receivables and payables may materially impact the financial statements. The CHIP Report on Payables and Receivables will provide the information needed to calculate the CHIP IBNR.; Form Number: CMS-10180 (OMB control number: 0938-0988); Frequency: Reporting—Annually; Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal governments; Number of Respondents: 56; Total Annual Responses: 56; Total Annual Hours: 392. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Beverly Boher at 410-786-7806.)

I. Purpose: The Panel will discuss the long-term rate of change in health spending and may make recommendations to the Secretary on how the Medicare Trustees might more accurately estimate health spending in the short and long run. The Panel's discussion is expected to be very technical in nature and will focus on the actuarial and economic assumptions and methods by which Trustees might more accurately measure health spending. This Committee is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2)). The Committee is composed of 9 members appointed by the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

II. Agenda: The Panel will likely hear presentations from the HHS Office of the Actuary, the Department of the Treasury and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation on issues they wish the panel to address. This may be followed by HHS staff presentations regarding long range growth, sustainability of provider payments under ACA and MACRA, methods for transitioning from short term (10 year) to long term (75 year) projections and methods and presentation of uncertainty in the report. After any presentations, the Panel will deliberate openly on the topics. Interested persons may observe the deliberations, but the Panel will not hear public comments during this time. The Panel will also allow an open public session for any attendee to address issues specific to the topic.

III. Meeting Attendance: The Tuesday, August 30, 2016 and Wednesday August 31, 2016 meetings are open to the public; however, in-person attendance is limited to space available. Priority to attend the meeting in-person will be given to those who pre-register.

Meeting Registration: The public may attend the meeting in-person. Space is limited and registration is required in order to attend in-person. Registration may be completed by emailing or faxing all the following information to Dr. Donald Oellerich at [email protected] or fax 202-690-6562:

Name.

Company name.

Postal address.

Email address.

If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact Dr. Oellerich, no later than August 24, 2016 by sending an email message to [email protected] or calling 202-690-8410.

Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by following the instructions in the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice. A confirmation email will be sent to the registrants shortly after completing the registration process.

IV. Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations must include the request for these services during registration.

V. Copies of the Charter: The Secretary's Charter for the Technical Advisory Panel on Medicare Trustee Reports is available upon from Dr. Donald Oellerich at [email protected] or by calling 202-690-8410.

Under Executive Order 13676, dated September 18, 2014, authority was given to the Secretary of HHS to establish the Advisory Council, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Agriculture. Activities of the Advisory Council are governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.

The Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS regarding programs and policies intended to support and evaluate the implementation of Executive Order 13676, including the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. The Advisory Council shall function solely for advisory purposes.

In carrying out its mission, the Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs and policies intended to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics by optimizing their use; advance research to develop improved methods for combating antibiotic resistance and conducting antibiotic stewardship; strengthen surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; prevent the transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; advance the development of rapid point-of-care and agricultural diagnostics; further research on new treatments for bacterial infections; develop alternatives to antibiotics for agricultural purposes; maximize the dissemination of up-to-date information on the appropriate and proper use of antibiotics to the general public and human and animal healthcare providers; and improve international coordination of efforts to combat antibiotic resistance.

The September public meeting will be dedicated to the topics of Prevention and Stewardship. The meeting agenda will be posted on the Advisory Council Web site at http://www.hhs.gov/ash/carb/ when it has been finalized. All agenda items are tentative and subject to change.

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to the available space. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Advisory Council at the address/telephone number listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. For those unable to attend in person, a live webcast will be available. More information on registration and accessing the webcast can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/ash/carb/.

Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments prior to the Advisory Council meeting by emailing [email protected] Public comments should be sent in by midnight September 14, 2016, and should be limited to no more than one page. All public comments received prior to September 14, 2016, will be provided to Advisory Council members; comments are limited to two minutes per speaker.

I. Purpose: The Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (“the Committee”) is required by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, 42 U.S.C 1395ee. This Committee is also governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Committee is to review physician-focused payment model proposals and prepare recommendations regarding whether such models meet criteria that will be established through rulemaking by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary). The Committee is composed of 11 members appointed by the Comptroller General.

II. Agenda. The Committee will continue discussions about the process by which physician-focused payment model proposals will be received and reviewed by the Committee after the Secretary establishes criteria for physician-focused payment models through rulemaking. There will be time allocated for public comment on the Committee's proposal review processes and revised draft documents. These revised documents will be posted on the Committee Web site and distributed on the Committee listserv prior to the public meeting.

III. Meeting Attendance. The September 16, 2016 meeting is open to the public; however, in-person attendance is limited to space available. Priority to attend the meeting in-person will be given to those who pre-register. If the meeting venue reaches its seating capacity, other registrants will be limited to participating by telephone.

The public may attend the meeting in-person or listen by phone via audio teleconference. Space is limited and registration is required in order to attend in-person or by phone. Registration may be completed online at https://www.regonline.com/PTACMeetingsRegistration. All the following information must be submitted when registering:

Name.

Company name.

Postal address.

Email address.

If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact Angela Tejeda, no later than September 8, 2016 by sending an email message to [email protected] or calling 202-401-8297.

Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by following the instructions in the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice. A confirmation email will be sent to the registrants shortly after completing the registration process.

IV. Special Accommodations. Individuals requiring special accommodations must include the request for these services during registration.

V. Copies of the Charter. The Secretary's Charter for the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee is available on the ASPE Web site at https://aspe.hhs.gov/medicare-access-and-chip-reauthorization-act-2015. Information about how to subscribe to the Committee's email listserv is found at https://aspe.hhs.gov/contact-physician-focused-payment-model-technical-advisory-committee.

PACHA was established by Executive Order 12963, dated June 14, 1995, as amended by Executive Order 13009, dated June 14, 1996. In a memorandum, dated July 13, 2010, and under Executive Order 13703, dated July 30, 2015, the President gave certain authorities to the PACHA for implementation of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States (Strategy). PACHA is currently operating under the authority given in Executive Order 13708, dated September 30, 2015.

PACHA provides advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs, policies, and research to promote effective treatment, prevention, and cure of HIV disease and AIDS, including considering common co-morbidities of those infected with HIV as needed, to promote effective HIV prevention and treatment and quality services to persons living with HIV disease and AIDS.

Substantial progress has been made in addressing the domestic HIV epidemic since the Strategy was released in July 2010. Under Executive Order 13703, the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States: Updated to 2020 (Updated Strategy) was released. PACHA shall contribute to the federal effort to improve HIV prevention and care.

The functions of the Council are solely advisory in nature.

The Council consists of not more than 25 members. Council members are selected from prominent community leaders with particular expertise in, or knowledge of, matters concerning HIV and AIDS, public health, global health, philanthropy, marketing or business, as well as other national leaders held in high esteem from other sectors of society. Council members are appointed by the Secretary or designee, in consultation with the White House Office on National AIDS Policy. The agenda for the upcoming meeting will be posted on the AIDS.gov Web site at www.aids.gov/pacha.

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify Caroline Talev at [email protected] Due to space constraints, pre-registration for public attendance is advisable and can be accomplished by contacting Caroline Talev at [email protected] by close of business on Monday, September 19, 2016. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Any individual who wishes to participate in the public comment session must register with Caroline Talev at [email protected] by close of business on Monday, September 19, 2016; registration for public comment will not be accepted by telephone. Individuals are encouraged to provide a written statement of any public comment(s) for accurate minute taking purposes. Public comment will be limited to two minutes per speaker. Any members of the public who wish to have printed material distributed to PACHA members at the meeting are asked to submit, at a minimum, 1 copy of the material(s) to Caroline Talev, no later than close of business on Monday, September 19, 2016.

Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

I. Watershed-based studies: