Federal Register Vol. 82, No.142,

Approval will be subject to meeting course criteria, a recommendation by the Agency-selected panel of housing partners, and signoff by the Administrator. Approval will be given as a third preference format unless the education provider is able to demonstrate and document how their online course along with a required supplemented service provides the same level of training and individualized attention as a first or second preference. 7 CFR 3550.11 outlines the order of preference given to homeownership education courses. First preference is given to classroom, one-on-one counseling, or interactive video conference. These formats are generally extensive and require a significant time and participation commitment from the Agency applicants. Second preference is given to interactive home-study or interactive telephone counseling of at least four hours duration. These formats may only be used if the formats under the first preference are not reasonably available. Third preference, which can only be used if all other formats are not reasonably available, is given to online counseling. 7 CFR 3550.11 also outlines the requirements an education provider and its course must meet in order to be approved for use by Agency applicants.

At a minimum, courses submitted for consideration must contain the following topics/content:

Online homeownership education providers interested in having their courses reviewed must provide a complete package consisting of the course background, online login access to the course for the Agency-selected panel, a copy of the completion certification, price sheet, and contact information (name, phone number, and email address).

The Agency-selected panel will base their recommendation on the following considerations:

A notice of education providers approved through this process will be issued via a memorandum to the Rural Development State Offices. The memorandum will list the format preference assigned to each provider. A copy of the memorandum will be simultaneously emailed to all education providers who applied through this notice.

Approvals are not subject to expiration. However, an approval may be revoked for justifiable cause.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

(1) By mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410;

(2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Federal Agency: Rural Housing Service.

Funding Opportunity Title: NOSA for Section 514 Farm Labor Housing Loans and Section 516 Farm Labor Housing Grants for Off-Farm Housing for Fiscal Year 2017.

Announcement Type: Solicitation of pre-applications from qualified applicants for FY 2017.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA): 10.405 and 10.427.

Due Date for Applications: September 11, 2017.

Pre-applications will only be accepted through the date and time listed in this Notice. All awards are subject to availability of funding. Individual requests may not exceed $3 million (total loan and grant). No State may receive more than 30 percent of available FLH funding available in FY 2017.

If there are insufficient applications from around the country to exhaust Sections 514 and 516 funds available, the Agency may then exceed the 30 percent cap per State. Section 516 off-farm FLH grants may not exceed 90 percent of the total development cost (TDC) of the housing as defined in 7 CFR 3560.11.

If leveraged funds are going to be used and are in the form of tax credits, the applicant must include in its pre-application written evidence that a tax credit application has been submitted and accepted by the Housing Finance Agency (HFA). All applications that will receive any leveraged funds must have firm commitments in place within 12 months of the issuance of a “Notice of Pre-application Review Action,” Handbook Letter 106 (3560). Applicants without written evidence that a tax credit application has been submitted and accepted by the HFA must certify in writing they will apply for tax credits to the HFA and obtain a firm commitment within 12 months of the issuance of a “Notice of Pre-application Review Action.”

Rental Assistance (RA) and operating assistance will be available for new construction in FY 2017. Operating assistance is explained at 7 CFR 3560.574 and may be used in lieu of tenant-specific RA in off-FLH projects that serve migrant farm workers as defined in 7 CFR 3560.11, that are financed under Section 514 or Section 516 (h) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486(h) respectively), and otherwise meet the requirements of 7 CFR 3560.574.

In order to maximize the use of our limited supply of FLH funds, if it is financially feasible we may contact eligible NOSA responses selected for an award in point score order starting with the higher scores, with proposals to modify the transaction's proportions of grants and loan funds. In addition, if funds remain after the highest scoring eligible NOSA responses are selected for awards, we may contact those eligible responses not selected for awards, in point score order starting with the highest scores, to ascertain whether those respondents will accept those remaining funds.

Housing Eligibility—Housing that is constructed with FLH loans and/or grants must meet Rural Development's design and construction standards contained in 7 CFR part 1924, subparts A and C. Once constructed, off-farm FLH must be managed in accordance with 7 CFR part 3560. In addition, off-farm FLH must be operated on a non-profit basis and tenancy must be open to all qualified domestic farm laborers, regardless at which farm they work. Section 514(f)(3) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1484(f)(3)) defines domestic farm laborers to include any person regardless of the person's source of employment, who receives a substantial portion of his or her income from the primary production of agricultural or aqua cultural commodities in the unprocessed or processed stage, and also includes the person's family.

Tenant Eligibility—Tenant eligibility is limited to persons who meet the definition of a “disabled domestic farm laborer,” or a “domestic farm laborer,” or “retired domestic farm laborer,” as defined in 7 CFR 3560.11. Farm workers who are admitted to this country on a temporary basis under the Temporary Agricultural Workers (H-2A Visa) program are not eligible to occupy Sections 514/516 off-farm FLH.

Applicant Eligibility—

(a) To be eligible to receive a Section 516 grant for off-farm FLH, the applicant must be a broad-based non-profit organization, including community and faith-based organizations, a non-profit organization of farm workers, a Federally recognized Indian tribe, an agency or political subdivision of a State or local Government, or a public agency (such as a housing authority). The applicant must be able to contribute at least one-tenth of the TDC from non-Rural Development resources which can include leveraged funds.

(b) To be eligible to receive a Section 514 loan for off-farm FLH, the applicant must be a broad-based non-profit organization, including community and faith-based organizations, a non-profit organization of farm workers, a Federally recognized Indian tribe, an agency or political subdivision of a State or local Government, a public agency (such as a housing authority), or a limited partnership which has a non-profit entity as its general partner, and

(i) Be unable to provide the necessary housing from its own resources;

(ii) Except for State or local public agencies and Indian tribes, be unable to obtain similar credit elsewhere at rates that would allow for rents within the payment ability of eligible residents.

(iii) Broad-based non-profit organizations must have a membership that reflects a variety of interests in the area where the housing will be located.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching—Section 516 grants for off-farm FLH may not exceed 90 percent of the TDC as provided in 7 CFR 3560.562(c)(1).

3. Other Requirements—The following requirements apply to loans and grants made in response to this Notice:

(a) 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E, regarding equal opportunity requirements;

(b) For grants only, 2 CFR parts 200 and 400, which establishes the uniform administrative and audit requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and local Governments and to non-profit organizations;

(c) 7 CFR part 1901, subpart F, regarding historical and archaeological properties;

(d) 7 CFR part 1970, regarding environmental review and documentation requirements;

(e) 7 CFR part 3560, subpart L, regarding the loan and grant authorities of the off-farm FLH program;

(f) 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A, regarding planning and performing construction and other development;

(g) 7 CFR part 1924, subpart C, regarding the planning and performing of site development work;

(h) For construction financed with a Section 516 grant, the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276(a)-276(a)-5) and implementing regulations published at 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5;

(i) All other requirements contained in 7 CFR part 3560, regarding the Sections 514/516 off-farm FLH programs; and

(j) Please note that grant applicants must obtain a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and maintain registration in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) prior to submitting a pre-application pursuant to 2 CFR 25.200(b). In addition, an entity applicant must maintain registration in the CCR database at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by the Agency. Similarly, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation in accordance with 2 CFR part 170. So long as an entity applicant does not have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b), the applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements should the applicant receive funding. See 2 CFR 170.200(b).

The application process will be in two phases: The initial pre-application (or proposal) and the submission of a final application. Only those pre-applications or proposals that are selected for further processing will be invited to submit final applications. In the event that a proposal is selected for further processing and the applicant declines, the next highest ranked unfunded pre-application may be selected for further processing. All pre-applications for Sections 514 and 516 funds must be filed with the appropriate Rural Development State Office and must meet the requirements of this Notice. Incomplete pre-applications will not be reviewed and will be returned to the applicant. No pre-application will be accepted after the deadline unless date and time are extended by another Notice published in the Federal Register.

Pre-applications can be submitted either electronically using the FLH Pre-Application form found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/farm-labor-housing-direct-loans-grants or in hard copy to the appropriate Rural Development Office where the project will be located. Follow the link to find the appropriate RD Office address for requesting and submitting pre-application at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/StateofficeAddresses.html. Applicants are strongly encouraged, but not required, to submit the pre-application electronically. The electronic form contains a button labeled “Send Form.” By clicking on the button, the applicant will see an email message window with an attachment that includes the electronic form the applicant filled out as a data file with a .pdf extension. In addition, an auto-reply acknowledgement will be sent to the applicant when the electronic Loan Proposal form is received by the Agency unless the sender has software that will block the receipt of the auto-reply email. The State Office will record pre-applications received electronically by the actual date and time when all attachments are received at the State Office.

Submission of the electronic Section 514 Loan Proposal form does not constitute submission of the entire proposal package which requires additional forms and supporting documentation as listed within this Notice. You may use one of the following three options for submitting the entire proposal package comprising of all required forms and documents. On the Loan Proposal form you can indicate the option you will be using to submit each required form and document.

(a) Electronic Media Option. Submit all forms and documents as read-only Adobe Acrobat files on electronic media such as CDs, DVDs or USB drives. For each electronic device submitted, the applicant should include a Table of Contents of all documents and forms on that device. The electronic media should be submitted to the Rural Development State Office listed in this Notice where the property is located. Any forms and documents that are not sent electronically, including the check for credit reports, must be mailed to the Rural Development State Office.

(b) Email Option. On the Loan Proposal form you will be asked for a submission email address. This email address will be used to establish a folder on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) server with your unique email address. Once the Loan Proposal form is processed, you will receive an additional email notifying you of the email address that you can use to email your forms and documents. Please Note: All forms and documents must be emailed from the same submission email address. This will ensure that all forms and documents that you send will be stored in the folder assigned to that email address. Any forms and documents that are not sent in via the email option must be submitted on an electronic media or in hard copy form to the Rural Development State Office.

(c) Hard Copy Submission to the Rural Development State Office. If you are unable to send the proposal package electronically using either of the options listed above, you may send a hard copy of all forms and documents to the Rural Development State Office where the property is located. Hard copy pre-applications received on or before the deadline date will receive the close of business time of the day received as the receipt time. Hard copy pre-applications must be received by the submission deadline and no later than 5:00 p.m., local time, September 11, 2017. Assistance for filing electronic and hard copy pre-applications can be obtained from any Rural Development State Office.

For electronic submissions, there is a time delay between the time it is sent and the time it is received depending on network traffic. As a result, last-minute submissions sent before the deadline date and time could well be received after the deadline date and time because of the increased network traffic. Applicants are reminded that all submissions received after the deadline date and time will be rejected, regardless of when they were sent.

If a pre-application is accepted for further processing, the applicant must submit a complete, final application, acceptable to Rural Development prior to the obligation of Rural Development funds. If the pre-application is not accepted for further processing the applicant will be notified of appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11.

(a) The pre-application must contain the following:

(1) A summary page listing the following items. This information should be double-spaced between items and not be in narrative form.

(i) Applicant's name.

(ii) Applicant's Taxpayer Identification Number.

(iii) Applicant's address.

(iv) Applicant's telephone number.

(v) Name of applicant's contact person, telephone number, and address.

(vi) Amount of loan and/or grant requested.

(vii) For grants of Federal financial assistance (including loans and grants, cooperative agreements, etc.), the applicant's Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and registration in the CCR database in accordance with 2 CFR part 25. As required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), all grant applicants must provide a DUNS number when applying for Federal grants, on or after October 1, 2003. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free number at (866) 705-5711 or via the internet at: http://www.dnb.com/. Additional information concerning this requirement can be obtained on the Grants.gov Web site at www.grants.gov. Similarly, applicants may register for the CCR at: https://www.uscontractorregistration.com/ or by calling (877) 252-2700.

(2) Awards made under this Notice are subject to the provisions contained in an appropriation in FY 2017 that funds FLH.

(3) A narrative verifying the applicant's ability to meet the eligibility requirements stated earlier in this Notice. If an applicant is selected for further processing, Rural Development will require additional documentation as set forth in a Conditional Commitment in order to verify the entity has the legal and financial capability to carry out the obligation of the loan.

(4) Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” can be obtained at: http://www.grants.gov or from any Rural Development State Office listed in Section VII of this Notice.

(5) For loan pre-applications, current (within 6 months of pre-application date) financial statements with the following paragraph certified by the applicant's designated and legally authorized signer:

(6) For loan pre-applications, a check for $24 from applicants made out to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This will be used to pay for credit reports obtained by Rural Development.

(7) Evidence that the applicant is unable to obtain credit from other sources. Letters from credit institutions which normally provide real estate loans in the area should be obtained and these letters should indicate the rates and terms upon which a loan might be provided. (Note: Not required from State or local public agencies or Indian tribes.)

(8) If a FLH grant is desired, a statement concerning the need for a FLH grant. The statement should include preliminary estimates of the rents required with and without a grant.

(9) A statement of the applicant's experience in operating labor housing or other rental housing. If the applicant's experience is limited, additional information should be provided to indicate how the applicant plans to compensate for this limited experience (i.e., obtaining assistance and advice of a management firm, non-profit group, public agency, or other organization which is experienced in rental management and will be available on a continuous basis).

(10) A brief statement explaining the applicant's proposed method of operation and management (i.e., on-site manager, contract for management services, etc.). As stated earlier in this Notice, the housing must be managed in accordance with the program's management regulation, 7 CFR part 3560 and tenancy is limited to “disabled domestic farm laborers,” “domestic farm laborers,” and “retired domestic farm laborers,” as defined in 7 CFR 3560.11.

(11) Applicants must also provide:

(i) A copy of, or an accurate citation to, the special provisions of State law under which they are organized, a copy of the applicant's charter, Articles of Incorporation, and by-laws;

(ii) The names, occupations, and addresses of the applicant's members, directors, and officers; and

(iii) If a member or subsidiary of another organization, the organization's name, address, and nature of business.

(12) A preliminary market survey or market study to identify the supply and demand for farm labor housing in the market area. The market area must be clearly identified and may include only the area from which tenants can reasonably be drawn for the proposed project. Documentation must be provided to justify a need within the intended market area for the housing of “domestic farm laborers,” as defined in 7 CFR 3560.11. The documentation must take into account disabled and retired farm workers. The preliminary survey should address or include the following items:

(i) The annual income level of farmworker families in the area and the probable income of the farm workers who will likely occupy the proposed housing;

(ii) A realistic estimate of the number of farm workers who remain in the area where they harvest and the number of farm workers who normally migrate into the area. Information on migratory workers should indicate the average number of months the migrants reside in the area and an indication of what type of family groups are represented by the migrants (i.e., single individuals as opposed to families);

(iii) General information concerning the type of labor intensive crops grown in the area and prospects for continued demand for farm laborers;

(iv) The overall occupancy rate for comparable rental units in the area and the rents charged and customary rental practices for these units (i.e., will they rent to large families, do they require annual leases, etc.);

(v) The number, condition, adequacy, rental rates and ownership of units currently used or available to farm workers;

(vi) A description of the units proposed, including the number, type, size, rental rates, amenities such as carpets and drapes, related facilities such as a laundry room or community room and other facilities providing supportive services in connection with the housing and the needs of the prospective tenants such as a health clinic or day care facility, estimated development timeline, estimated TDC, and applicant contribution; and

(vii) The applicant must also identify all other sources of funds, including the dollar amount, source, and commitment status. (Note: A Section 516 grant may not exceed 90 percent of the TDC of the housing.)

(13) The applicant must submit a checklist, certification, and signed affidavit by the project architect or engineer, as applicable, for any energy programs listed in Section IV the applicant intends to participate in.

(14) The following forms are required:

(i) A prepared HUD Form 935.2A, “Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHM) Multi-Family Housing,” in accordance with 7 CFR 1901.203(c). The plan will reflect that occupancy is open to all qualified “domestic farm laborers,” regardless of which farming operation they work and that they will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability, marital or familial status or National origin in regard to the occupancy or use of the units. The form can be found at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=935-2a.PDF.

(ii) A proposed operating budget utilizing Form RD 3560-7, “Multiple Family Housing Project Budget/Utility Allowance,” can be found at: http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/efcommon/eFileServices/eForms/RD3560-7.PDF.

(iii) An estimate of development cost utilizing Form RD 1924-13, “Estimate and Certificate of Actual Cost,” can be found at: http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/efcommon/eFileServices/eForms/RD1924-13.PDF.

(iv) Form RD 3560-30, “Certification of no Identity of Interest (IOI),” can be found at: http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/efcommon/eFileServices/eForms/RD3560-30.PDF and Form RD 3560-31, “Identity of Interest Disclosure/Qualification Certification,” can be found at: http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/efcommon/eFileServices/eForms/RD3560-31.PDF.

(v) Form HUD 2530, “Previous Participation Certification,” can be found at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=2530.pdf.

(vi) If requesting RA or Operating Assistance, Form RD 3560-25, “Initial Request for Rental Assistance or Operating Assistance,” can be found at: http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/efcommon/eFileServices/eForms/RD3560-25.PDF.

(vii) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement,” can be found at: http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/efcommon/eFileServices/eForms/RD400-4.PDF. Applicants for revitalization, repair, and rehabilitation funding are to apply through the Multifamily Housing Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) Demonstration Program.

(viii) Evidence of compliance with Executive Order 12372. The applicant must send a copy of Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance”, to the applicant's State clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. If the applicant is located in a State that does not have a clearinghouse, the applicant is not required to submit the form. Applications from Federally recognized Indian tribes are not subject to this requirement.

(15) Evidence of site control, such as an option contract or sales contract. In addition, a map and description of the proposed site, including the availability of water, sewer, and utilities and the proximity to community facilities and services such as shopping, schools, transportation, doctors, dentists, and hospitals.

(16) Preliminary plans and specifications, including plot plans, building layouts, and type of construction and materials. The housing must meet Rural Development's design and construction standards contained in 7 CFR part 1924, subparts A and C and must also meet all applicable Federal, State, and local accessibility standards.

(17) A supportive services plan, which describes services that will be provided on-site or made available to tenants through cooperative agreements with service providers in the community, such as a health clinic or day care facility. Off-site services must be accessible and affordable to farm workers and their families. Letters of intent from service providers are acceptable documentation at the pre-application stage.

(18) A sources and uses statement which shows all sources of funding included in the proposed project. The terms and schedules of all sources included in the project should be included in the sources and uses statement.

(19) A separate one-page information sheet listing each of the “Pre-Application Scoring Criteria,” contained in this Notice, followed by a reference to the page numbers of all relevant material and documentation that is contained in the proposal that supports the criteria.

(20) Applicants are encouraged, but not required, to include a checklist of all of the pre-application requirements and to have their pre-application indexed and tabbed to facilitate the review process;

(21) Evidence of compliance with the requirements of the applicable State Housing Preservation Office (SHPO), and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). A letter from the SHPO and/or THPO where the off-farm labor housing project is located, signed by their designee will serve as evidence of compliance.

1. Selection Criteria. Section 514 FLH loan funds and Section 516 FLH grant funds will be distributed to States based on a national competition, as follows:

(a) Rural Development State Office will accept, review, and score pre-applications in accordance with this Notice. The scoring factors are:

(1) The presence of construction cost savings, including donated land and construction leverage assistance, for the units that will serve program-eligible tenants. The savings will be calculated as a percentage of the Rural Development TDC. The percentage calculation excludes any costs prohibited by Rural Development as loan expenses, such as a developer's fee. Construction cost savings includes, but is not limited to, funds for hard construction costs, and State or Federal funds which are applicable to construction costs. A minimum of 10 percent cost savings is required to earn points; however, if the total percentage of cost savings is less than 10 percent and the proposal includes donated land, two points will be awarded for the donated land. To count as cost savings for purposes of the selection criteria, the applicant must submit written evidence from the third-party funder that an application for those funds has been submitted and accepted points will be awarded in accordance with the following table using rounding to the nearest whole number.

(2) The presence of operational cost savings, such as tax abatements, non-Rural Development tenant subsidies or donated services are calculated on a per-unit cost savings for the sum of the savings. Savings must be available for at least 5 years and documentation must be provided with the application demonstrating the availability of savings for 5 years. To calculate the savings, take the total amount of savings and divide it by the number of units in the project that will benefit from the savings to obtain the per unit cost savings. For non-Rural Development tenant subsidy, if the value changes during the 5-year calculation, the applicant must use the lower of the non-Rural Development tenant subsidy to calculate per unit cost savings. For example, a 10-unit property with 100 percent designated farm labor housing units receiving $20,000 per year non-Rural Development subsidy yields a cost savings of $100,000 ($20,000 × 5 years); resulting to a $10,000 per-unit cost savings ($100,000/10 units). Use the following table to apply points:

(3) Additional 10 points will be awarded to projects in persistent poverty counties. A county is considered persistently poor if 20 percent or more of its population was living in poverty over the last 30 years (measured by the 1990, 2000 decennial censuses and 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates).

(4) Presence of tenant services.

(i) Up to 25 points will be awarded based on the presence of and extent to which a tenant services plan exists that clearly outlines services that will be provided to the residents of the proposed project. These services may include, but are not limited to, transportation related services, on-site English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, move-in funds, emergency assistance funds, homeownership counseling, food pantries, after school tutoring, and computer learning centers.

(ii) Two points will be awarded for each resident service included in the tenant services plan up to a maximum of 10 points. Plans must detail how the services are to be administered, who will administer them, and where they will be administered. All tenant service plans must include letters of intent that clearly state the service that will be provided at the project for the benefit of the residents from any party administering each service, including the applicant.

(5) Energy Initiative Scoring Points (maximum 70 points)

Properties may receive points for energy initiatives in the categories of energy conservation, energy generation, water conservation and green property management. Depending on the scope of work (SOW), properties may earn “energy initiative” points (up to a maximum of 70 points) in either one of two categories: (1) New Construction or (2) Purchase and Rehabilitation of an Existing Non-Farm Labor Housing Building. Projects will be eligible for one category of the two, but not both.

Energy programs including LEED for Homes, Green Communities, etc., will each have an initial checklist indicating prerequisites for participation in its energy program. The applicable energy program checklist will establish whether prerequisites for the energy program's participation will be met. All checklists must be accompanied by a signed affidavit by the project architect or engineer stating that the goals are achievable and the project has been enrolled in these programs if enrollment is applicable to that program. In addition, projects that apply for points under the energy generation category must include calculations of savings of energy. Compare property energy usage of three scenarios: (1) Property built to required code of State with no renewables, to (2) property as-designed with commitments to stated energy conservation programs without the use of renewables and (3) property as-designed with commitments to stated energy conservation programs and the use of proposed renewables. Use local average metrics for weather and utility costs and detail savings in kWh and dollars. Provide payback calculations. These calculations must be done by a licensed engineer or credentialed renewable energy provider. Include with application, the provider/engineer's credentials including qualifications, recommendations, and proof of previous work. The checklist, affidavit, calculations and qualifications of engineer/energy provider must be submitted together with the loan application.

Enrollment in EPA Portfolio Manager Program. All projects awarded scoring points for energy initiatives must enroll the project in the EPA Portfolio Manager program to track post-construction energy consumption data. More information about this program may be found at: http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/use-portfolio-manager.

(i) Energy Conservation for New Construction or Purchase and Rehabilitation of an Existing Non-Farm Labor Housing Building (maximum 55 points). Projects may be eligible for up to 55 points when the pre-application includes a written certification by the applicant to participate and achieve certification in the following energy efficiency programs.

The points will be allocated as follows:

• Participation in the EPA's Energy Star for Homes V3 program. (20 points) http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=bldrs_lenders_raters.pt_bldr.

OR

• Participation in the Green Communities program by the Enterprise Community Partners. (30 points) http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/solutions-and-innovation/enterprise-green-communities.

OR

• Participation in one of the following two programs will be awarded points for certification.

• LEED for Homes program by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC): http://www.usgbc.org.

Applicant must state the level of certification that the applicant's plans will achieve in their certification in its pre-application.

OR

• Home Innovation's and The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) ICC 700 National Green Building Standard TM: http://www.nahb.org/.

Applicant must state the level of certification that the applicant's plans will achieve in their certification in its pre-application.

AND

• Participation in the Department of Energy's Zero Energy Ready program. (8 points) http://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/zero-energy-ready-home.

AND

• Participation in local green/energy efficient building standards. Applicants who participate in a city, county or municipality program, will receive an additional 2 points.

(ii) Energy Conservation for Rehabilitation (maximum 55 points). Pre-applications for the purchase and rehabilitation of non-program MFH and related facilities in rural areas may be eligible to receive 55 points when the pre-application includes a written certification by the applicant to participate in one of the following energy efficiency programs. Again, the certification must be accompanied by a signed affidavit by the project architect or engineer stating that the goals are achievable. Points will be award as follows:

• Participation in the Green Communities program by the Enterprise Community Partners (53 points) http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/solutions-and-innovation/enterprise-green-communities. At least 30 percent of the points needed to qualify for the Green Communities program must be earned under the Energy Efficiency section of Green Communities.

AND

• Participation in local green/energy efficient building standards. Applicants who participate in a city, county or municipality program, will receive an additional 2 points. The applicant should be aware of and look for additional requirements that are sometimes embedded in the third-party program's rating and verification systems. (2 points)

(iii) Energy Generation (maximum 7 points). Pre-applications for new construction or purchase and rehabilitation of non-program multi-family projects which participate in the above mentioned programs and receive at least 20 points in the point allocations above are eligible to earn additional points for installation of on-site renewable energy sources. Energy analysis of preliminary building plans using industry-recognized simulation software must document the projected total energy consumption of all of the building components and building site usage. Projects with an energy analysis of the preliminary or rehabilitation building plans that propose a 10 percent to 100 percent energy generation commitment (where generation is considered to be the total amount of energy needed to be generated on-site to make the building a net-zero consumer of energy) will be awarded points as follows:

• 0 to 9 percent commitment to energy generation receives 0 points.

• 10 to 20 percent commitment to energy generation receives 1 point.

• 21 to 40 percent commitment to energy generation receives 2 points.

• 41 to 60 percent commitment to energy generation receives 3 points.

• 61 to 80 percent commitment to energy generation receives 4 points.

• 81-100 percent or more commitment to energy generation receives 5 points.

Projects may participate in Power Purchase Agreements or Solar Leases to achieve their on-site renewable energy generation goals provided that the financial obligations of the lease/purchase agreements are clearly documented and included in the application, and qualifying ratios continue to be achieved.

An additional (2) points will be awarded for off-grid systems, or elements of systems, provided that at least 5 percent of on-site renewable system is off-grid. See www.dsireusa.org for State and local specific incentives and regulations of energy initiatives.

(iv) Water Conservation in Irrigation Measures (maximum 3 points). Projects may be awarded 3 points for the use of an engineered recycled water (gray water or storm water) for landscape irrigation covering 50 percent or more of the property's site landscaping needs.

(v) Property Management Credentials (maximum 5 points). Projects may be awarded an additional 5 points if the designated property management company or individuals that will assume maintenance and operations responsibilities upon completion of construction work have a Credential for Green Property Management. Credentialing can be obtained from the National Apartment Association (NAA), National Affordable Housing Management Association, The Institute for Real Estate Management, U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Operations and Maintenance (LEED OM), or another source with a certifiable credentialing program. Credentialing must be illustrated in the resume(s) of the property management team and included with the pre-application.

The National Office will rank all pre-applications nationwide and distribute funds to States in rank order, within funding and RA limits. When proposals have an equal score, preference will be given first to Indian tribes as defined in § 3560.11 and then local non-profit organizations or public bodies whose principal purposes include low-income housing that meet the conditions of § 3560.55(c) and the following conditions:

• Is exempt from Federal income taxes under section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue code;

• Is not wholly or partially owned or controlled by a for-profit or limited-profit type entity;

• Whose members, or the entity, do not share an identity of interest with a for-profit or limited-profit type entity;

• Is not co-venturing with another entity; and

• The entity or its members will not be receiving any direct or indirect benefits pursuant to Low Income Housing Tax Credits.

If there are two or more applications that have the same score and both cannot be funded, a lottery in accordance with 7 CFR 3560.56(c) (2) will be used to break the tie. If insufficient funds or RA remain for the next ranked proposal, that applicant will be given a chance to modify their pre-application to bring it within remaining funding levels. This will be repeated for each next ranked eligible proposal until an award can be made or the list is exhausted.

Rural Development will notify all applicants whether their applications have been accepted or rejected and provide appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11, as appropriate.

Loan applicants must submit their initial applications by the due date specified in this Notice. Once the applications have been scored and ranked by the National Office, the National Office will advise State Offices of the proposals selected for further processing, State Offices will respond to applicants by letter.

If the application is not accepted for further processing, the applicant will be notified of appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11.

All Farm Labor Housing loans and grants are subject to the restrictive-use provisions contained in 7 CFR 3560.72(a) (2).

Borrowers must maintain separate financial records for the operation and maintenance of the project and for tenant services. Tenant services will not be funded by Rural Development. Funds allocated to the operation and maintenance of the project may not be used to supplement the cost of tenant services, nor may tenant service funds be used to supplement the project operation and maintenance. Detailed financial reports regarding tenant services will not be required unless specifically requested by Rural Development, and then only to the extent necessary for Rural Development and the borrower to discuss the affordability (and competitiveness) of the service provided to the tenant. The project audit, or verification of accounts on Form RD 3560-10, “Borrower Balance Sheet,” together with an accompanying Form RD 3560-7, “Multiple Family Housing Project Budget Utility Allowance,” must allocate revenue and expense between project operations and the service component.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program. Political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARTET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at: http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of a complaint form, call, (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410;

(2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email at: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Exceptions to Including the Full USDA Non-Discrimination Statement.

If the size of the material is too small to include the full statement, the material will at a minimum, include the following statement in print in the same size as the text:

“USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.” Where appropriate, a recipient may state:

“This institution in an equal opportunity provider.”

On March 21, 2016, the Department published its notice of initiation of this anti-circumvention inquiry.1 The Department published the Preliminary Determination of the anti-circumvention inquiry of aluminum extrusions from the PRC on November 14, 2016.2

A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document, and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The merchandise covered by the Orders are aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China. The merchandise subject to the orders are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 6603.90.8100, 7616.99.51, 8479.89.94, 8481.90.9060, 8481.90.9085, 9031.90.9195, 8424.90.9080, 9405.99.4020, 9031.90.90.95, 7616.10.90.90, 7609.00.00, 7610.10.00, 7610.90.00, 7615.10.30, 7615.10.71, 7615.10.91, 7615.19.10, 7615.19.30, 7615.19.50, 7615.19.70, 7615.19.90, 7615.20.00, 7616.99.10, 7616.99.50, 8479.89.98, 8479.90.94, 8513.90.20, 9403.10.00, 9403.20.00, 7604.21.00.00, 7604.29.10.00, 7604.29.30.10, 7604.29.30.50, 7604.29.50.30, 7604.29.50.60, 7608.20.00.30, 7608.20.00.90, 8302.10.30.00, 8302.10.60.30, 8302.10.60.60, 8302.10.60.90, 8302.20.00.00, 8302.30.30.10, 8302.30.30.60, 8302.41.30.00, 8302.41.60.15, 8302.41.60.45, 8302.41.60.50, 8302.41.60.80, 8302.42.30.10, 8302.42.30.15, 8302.42.30.65, 8302.49.60.35, 8302.49.60.45, 8302.49.60.55, 8302.49.60.85, 8302.50.00.00, 8302.60.90.00, 8305.10.00.50, 8306.30.00.00, 8414.59.60.90, 8415.90.80.45, 8418.99.80.05, 8418.99.80.50, 8418.99.80.60, 8419.90.10.00, 8422.90.06.40, 8473.30.20.00, 8473.30.51.00, 8479.90.85.00, 8486.90.00.00, 8487.90.00.80, 8503.00.95.20, 8508.70.00.00, 8515.90.20.00, 8516.90.50.00, 8516.90.80.50, 8517.70.00.00, 8529.90.73.00, 8529.90.97.60, 8536.90.80.85, 8538.10.00.00, 8543.90.88.80, 8708.29.50.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8803.30.00.60, 9013.90.50.00, 9013.90.90.00, 9401.90.50.81, 9403.90.10.40, 9403.90.10.50, 9403.90.10.85, 9403.90.25.40, 9403.90.25.80, 9403.90.40.05, 9403.90.40.10, 9403.90.40.60, 9403.90.50.05, 9403.90.50.10, 9403.90.50.80, 9403.90.60.05, 9403.90.60.10, 9403.90.60.80, 9403.90.70.05, 9403.90.70.10, 9403.90.70.80, 9403.90.80.10, 9403.90.80.15, 9403.90.80.20, 9403.90.80.41, 9403.90.80.51, 9403.90.80.61, 9506.11.40.80, 9506.51.40.00, 9506.51.60.00, 9506.59.40.40, 9506.70.20.90, 9506.91.00.10, 9506.91.00.20, 9506.91.00.30, 9506.99.05.10, 9506.99.05.20, 9506.99.05.30, 9506.99.15.00, 9506.99.20.00, 9506.99.25.80, 9506.99.28.00, 9506.99.55.00, 9506.99.60.80, 9507.30.20.00, 9507.30.40.00, 9507.30.60.00, 9507.90.60.00, and 9603.90.80.50.

Products subject to these Orders may also enter under HTSUS: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99 as well as under other HTSUS chapters. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these Orders is dispositive.4

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this inquiry are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached in the Appendix to this notice.

In accordance with 781(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we continue to find that all imports from the PRC of heat-treated extruded aluminum products that meet the chemical specifications for 5050-grade aluminum alloy, regardless of producer, exporter, or importer, constitute later-developed merchandise that is circumventing, and should be included within, the scope of the Orders. 5

In light of the Department's final affirmative determination of circumvention pursuant to section 781(d) of the Act, the Department rescinds its minor alterations anti-circumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of inquiry merchandise from the PRC (regardless of producer, exporter, or importer), entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after March 21, 2016, the date of publication of the initiation of this inquiry, until appropriate liquidation instructions are issued.6 The Department will also instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit of estimated duties at the rate applicable to the exporter on all unliquidated entries of inquiry merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 21, 2016.

In light of the Department's preliminary finding of circumvention, the Department considered whether to require importers of certain aluminum extrusions who claim the imported merchandise is not subject to the Orders to certify that the aluminum extrusions were not produced from heat-treated 5050-grade aluminum alloy. Based on the Department's analysis of comments received, the Department will not require importers to maintain a certification at this time.7

As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, because the Department has determined, for purposes of sections 781(d)(1) and (e) of the Act, that the later-developed inquiry merchandise does not incorporate a significant technological advance or significant alteration of an earlier product, the Department did not notify the International Trade Commission of its proposed inclusion of the inquiry merchandise within the Orders.

This affirmative anti-circumvention determination is published in accordance with section 781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225.

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

An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity:

(1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and

(2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.

The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action with respect to environmental consequences on the human environment.

Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process and making a final decision on the IHA request.

On May 8, 2017, NMFS received a request from CBS for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to the GPIP dock modification project in Sawmill Cove, Alaska. On May 26, 2017, NMFS requested additional information and CBS submitted a revised application on June 21, 2017, which NMFS deemed adequate and complete. CBS's request is for harassment only and NMFS concurs that serious injury or mortality is not expected to result from this activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

CBS is requesting take, by Level A and B harassment, of six species of marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal within Sawmill Cove, Alaska. Pile driving and removal would occur for 16 days from October 1 through December 31, 2017. No subsequent IHAs would be necessary to complete the project.

CBS is modifying an existing marine and commercial industrial site by removing existing aging docks and installing a new floating dock, small craft float, and transfer bridge. To do so, CBS must remove existing abandoned, creosote-treated piles and install new piles. Pile driving and pile removal associated with this work may result in auditory injury (Level A harassment) and behavioral harassment (Level B harassment). All pile driving and removal would take place at the existing dock facility and occur for 16 days. The purpose of the project is to provide deep water port access, meet modern safety standards, and promote marine commerce in the region.

The proposed IHA would be valid from October 1 through December 31, 2017. Removing old timber piles with a vibratory hammer could occur for up to 5 hours per day for 6 days. Removing the temporary template piles could occur for up to 1 hour on 2 additional days. Vibratory pile driving could occur for up to 2 hours per day for 6 days to install the permanent piles while impact pile driving could occur for up to 10 minutes a day for proofing following vibratory pile driving. In total, pile activities are expected to occur for 16 days from October 1 through December 31, 2017.

Sawmill Cove is a small body of water located near Sitka, Alaska at the mouth of Silver Bay, which opens to the Sitka Sound and Gulf of Alaska (see figures 1 and 2 in application). Bathymetry in Sawmill Cove shows a fairly even seafloor that gradually falls to a depth of approximately 50 feet (ft) (15 meters (m)). To the southeast, Silver Bay is approximately 0.5 miles (mi) (0.8 kilometers (km)) wide, 5.5 mi (8.9 km) long, and 150-250 ft (46-76 m) deep. The bay is uniform with few rock outcroppings or islands. To the southwest, the Eastern Channel opens to Sitka Sound, dropping off to depths of 400 ft (120 m) approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) southwest of the project site.

Sawmill Cove is an active marine commercial and industrial area. The dock footprint is previously disturbed with abandoned dock structures associated with the former Alaska Pulp Mill. Silver Bay Seafoods' processing plant is located adjacent to the project site. This plant processes herring and salmon (primarily pink salmon).

The purpose of the project is to construct a multipurpose docking area that will serve a wide variety of vessels, provide deep water port access to the GPIP, meet modern standards for safety, and promote marine commerce in the region. The proposed work includes removing 280 abandoned creosote-treated piles located in shallow water, installing a large floating deep-water dock (a repurposed barge measuring 250 ft (76.2 m) × 74 ft (22.6 m) × 19 ft (5.8 m)), small craft float (12 ft (3.7 m) × 100 ft (30.5 m)), and v-shaped float (see Figure 4 and 5 in CBS's application). For access, CBS would also construct a transfer bridge and gangway. To stabilize the shoreline, CBS would install an abutment and retaining wall. Materials and equipment, including the floating dock, would be transported to the project site by barge. While work is conducted in the water, anchored barges would be used to stage construction materials and equipment.

Pile removal and installation are the only activities that may harass marine mammals. To facilitate the work, CBS would construct two dolphin structures to support the floating dock. Each dolphin requires 6 temporary 30-in steel piles to act as a template for installing the permanent piles, 2 permanent 30-in steel batter piles (piles driven at an angle with the vertical to resist a lateral force) to act as the “legs” of the dolphin, and a single 48-in vertical steel piles which would constitute the center of the dolphin structure. CBS would use an ICE 44B vibratory hammer (12,450 pounds static weight) and a Delmag D46 diesel hammer (max energy 107,280 ft-pounds) to install piles. The existing old timber piles (12-in and 16-in timber) associated with the old dock would be removed by the vibratory hammer if they cannot be pulled out mechanically. The 12 temporary piles used for the template would also be removed following dock completion.

The six permanent piles (four 30-in and two 48-in) would be driven through approximately 60-70 ft (18-21 m) of unconsolidated sand with a vibratory hammer operated at a reduced energy setting, impacted into bedrock, and then anchored into 25-40 ft (7.6-12.2 m) of bedrock with a rock anchor drill and grout. To anchor the piles, a 10-inch casing would be inserted in the center of the pile and a 15.2 centimeter (cm) (6-in) rock anchor drill would be lowered into the casing and used to drill into bedrock. Rock fragments would be removed through the top of the casing. Finally, the drill and casing would be removed and the hole would be filled with grout to secure the pile to bedrock. The casing acts like a cofferdam and would block noise; therefore, drilling is not expected to result in harassment and is not discussed further.

CBS would use only a vibratory hammer to install the 12 temporary template piles (i.e., no impact hammering). Once the project is complete, CBS would remove all 12 temporary piles with the vibratory hammer.

The duration of pile driving and removal varies by pile type (see Table 1 in CBS's application). CBS would remove up to 60 of the old timber piles per day with a vibratory hammer (5 minutes for each pile) if they cannot be removed mechanically. In total, removing the timber piles could require using a vibratory hammer for up to 5 hours per day for 6 days. Installing each of the 30-inch temporary piles used to set the template would require 30 minutes of vibratory driving and CBS anticipates installing up to 6 per day (3 hours total). Removing each of these piles is anticipated to take 10 minutes per pile for a total of 1 hour per day. Installing the permanent 30-in piles used to construct each dolphin would require approximately 2 hours of vibratory driving followed by 10 minutes (400 strikes) of impact hammering; one 30-in pile would be installed per day. The 48-in piles require similar installation periods (a maximum 2 hours of vibratory followed by 10 minutes (400 strikes) of impact); one pile would be installed per day. The project schedule is set such that pile driving would occur, at minimum, every other day when the permanent piles are installed (i.e., there would be at least one day break between installing each pile where other activities such as welding would occur). CBS would do the work from October 1 through December 31, 2017.

CBS would carry out pile driving in a manner designed to reduce impacts to marine mammals. The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”).

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more general information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).

Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in Sawmill Cove and Silver Bay and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. 2016 SARs (e.g., Muto et al. 2017). All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2016 SARs (Muto et al., 2017).

NMFS identifies 14 species may potentially occur in the action area: humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalis), North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), sperm whale (Physeter macrophalus), killer whale (Orcinus orca), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise (P. dalli), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) and Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Of these, one pinniped (Northern fur seal) and eight cetacean species and are considered extralimital species (i.e., those that do not normally occur in a given area but for which there are one or more occurrence records): The North Pacific right whale, gray whale, minke whale, fin whale, sperm whale, Cuvier's beaked whale, Pacific white-sided dolphin, and Dall's porpoise (Straley and Pendall, 2017). Given this, no take is requested for these species and they are not considered further in this proposed IHA.

The Steller sea lion is the largest of the eared seals, ranging along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California, with centers of abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Steller sea lions were listed as threatened range-wide under the ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Subsequently, NMFS published a final rule designating critical habitat for the species as a 20 nautical mile buffer around all major haul-outs and rookeries, as well as associated terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, and three large offshore foraging areas (58 FR 45269; August 27, 1993). In 1997, NMFS reclassified Steller sea lions as two distinct population segments (DPSs) based on genetic studies and other information (62 FR 24345; May 5, 1997). Steller sea lion populations that primarily occur west of 144° W. (Cape Suckling, Alaska) comprise the western DPS (wDPS), while all others comprise the eastern DPS (eDPS); however, there is regular movement of both DPSs across this boundary (Jemison et al. 2013). Upon this reclassification, the wDPS became listed as endangered while the eDPS remained as threatened (62 FR 24345; May 5, 1997). In November 2013, the eDPS was delisted (78 FR 66140). Based on recent observations of branded animals in Southeast Alaska, NMFS estimates that 98 percent of Steller seas lion occurring within the action area belong to the eDPS, leaving 2 percent to the wDPS (Suzie Teerlink, pers. comm, May 19, 2017). The current abundance estimate for the eDPS in Alaska is between 60,131-74,448, and 49,497 animals for the wDPS (Muto et al. 2017).

Steller sea lions forage in nearshore and pelagic waters where they are opportunistic predators. They feed primarily on a wide variety of fishes and cephalopods. Because the action area contains a herring processing plant, animals may linger in the area to feed opportunistically. However, strong residency time may be limited because the plant does not operate from October through March (when pile activities would occur). Anecdotal evidence from staff at the fish processing plant indicate that multiple (up to 10) Steller sea lions may reside in the area for multiple days (pers. comm, Solstice, July 5, 2017).

Steller sea lions use terrestrial haulout sites to rest and take refuge. They also gather on well-defined, traditionally used rookeries to pup and breed. These habitats are typically gravel, rocky, or sand beaches; ledges; or rocky reefs. There are no established haul-outs in the action area; however, individuals in the action area may rest on rocks and along the shoreline intermittently. No critical habitat for this species is designated in Southeast Alaska.

Steller sea lions are included in Alaska subsistence harvests. Since subsistence harvest surveys began in 1992, the number of households hunting and harvesting sea lions has remained relatively constant at low levels (Wolf et al. 2013). In 2012, the community of Sitka had an estimated subsistence take of 1 Steller sea lion (Wolf et al. 2013).

Harbor seals range from Baja California north along the west coasts of Washington, Oregon, California, British Columbia, and Southeast Alaska; west through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the Aleutian Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to Cape Newenham and the Pribilof Islands. They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice, and feed in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals are generally non-migratory, with local movements associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction.

Harbor seals in Alaska are partitioned into 12 separate stocks based largely on genetic structure: (1) The Aleutian Islands stock, (2) the Pribilof Islands stock, (3) the Bristol Bay stock, (4) the North Kodiak stock, (5) the South Kodiak stock, (6) the Prince William Sound stock, (7) the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock, (8) the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock, (9) the Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage stock, (10) the Sitka/Chatham stock, (11) the Dixon/Cape Decision stock, and (12) the Clarence Strait stock. Only the Sitka/Chatham stock is considered in this proposed IHA. The range of this stock includes Cape Bingham south to Cape Ommaney and the adjacent coastal and inshore waters, including the project area.

Within the action area, harbor seals are present year round with peak abundance February through April (Straley and Pendell 2017). Monthly group size ranges from 0-5 animals but in low numbers. Average group size is 1-2 individuals (Straley and Pendell 2017). Similar to Steller sea lions, harbor seals may linger in the action area for multiple days; however, no designated haul-outs are within close proximity.

Harbor seals are included in Alaska subsistence harvests. Since subsistence harvest surveys began in 1992, there have been declines in the number of households hunting and harvesting seals in Southeast Alaska (Wolf et al. 2013). In 2012, the community of Sitka had an estimated subsistence take of 49 harbor seals (Wolf et al. 2013).

The humpback whale is distributed worldwide in all ocean basins. In winter, most humpback whales occur in the subtropical and tropical waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and migrate to high latitudes in the summer to feed. The historic summer feeding range of humpback whales in the North Pacific encompassed coastal and inland waters around the Pacific Rim from Point Conception, California, north to the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, and west along the Aleutian Islands to the Kamchatka Peninsula and into the Sea of Okhotsk and north of the Bering Strait (Johnson and Wolman 1984).

Under the MMPA, there are three stocks of humpback whales in the North Pacific: (1) The California/Oregon/Washington and Mexico stock, consisting of winter/spring populations in coastal Central America and coastal Mexico which migrate to the coast of California to southern British Columbia in summer/fall; (2) the central North Pacific stock, consisting of winter/spring populations of the Hawaiian Islands which migrate primarily to northern British Columbia/Southeast Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands; and (3) the western North Pacific stock, consisting of winter/spring populations off Asia which migrate primarily to Russia and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. The central North Pacific stock is the only stock that is found near the project activities.

On September 8, 2016, NMFS published a final rule dividing the globally listed endangered species into 14 DPSs, removing the worldwide species-level listing, and in its place listing four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259; effective October 11, 2016). Two DPSs (Hawaii and Mexico) are potentially present within the action area. The Hawaii DPS is not listed and the Mexico DPS is listed as threatened under the ESA. The Hawaii DPS is estimated to contain 11,398 animals where the Mexico DPS is estimated to contain 3,264 animals.

Within the action area, humpback whales are seen most frequently from September through February although sighting may extend into April (Straley and Pendell 2017). Survey data indicates that the typical group size for humpback whales in the area is between 2 and 4 whales, and approximately 2.18 whales occur in the area per day. The maximum group size is unknown. When present in the area, humpback whales are foraging primarily on herring.

Killer whales have been observed in all oceans and seas of the world, but the highest densities occur in colder and more productive waters found at high latitudes. Killer whales are found throughout the North Pacific, and occur along the entire Alaska coast, in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Muto et al. 2017).

Based on data regarding association patterns, acoustics, movements, and genetic differences, eight killer whale stocks are now recognized: (1) The Alaska Resident stock; (2) the Northern Resident stock; (3) the Southern Resident stock; (4) the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock; (5) the AT1 Transient stock; (6) the West Coast transient stock, occurring from California through southeastern Alaska; and (7) the Offshore stock, and (8) the Hawaiian stock. Only the Alaska resident; Northern resident; Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient (Gulf of Alaska transient); and the West coast transient stocks are considered in this application because other stocks occur outside the geographic area under consideration. Any of these four stocks could be seen in the action area; however, the Northern resident stock is most likely to occur in the area. The trend for the Northern resident stock is an increasing population with an average of 2.1 percent annual increase over a 36 year time period. For all other stocks, population trends are unknown.

In the action area, killer whales are known to occur but there sightings are unpredictable. Between 0 and 12 killer whales can occur within the project area with typical group size of between four and eight whales with a maximum group size of eight (Straley and Pendell 2017).

The harbor porpoise inhabits temporal, subarctic, and arctic waters. In the eastern North Pacific, harbor porpoises range from Point Barrow, Alaska, to Point Conception, California. Harbor porpoise primarily frequent coastal waters and occur most frequently in waters less than 100 m deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010). They may occasionally be found in deeper offshore waters.

In Alaska, harbor porpoises are currently divided into three stocks, based primarily on geography: (1) The Southeast Alaska stock—occurring from the northern border of British Columbia to Cape Suckling, Alaska, (2) the Gulf of Alaska stock—occurring from Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass, and (3) the Bering Sea stock—occurring throughout the Aleutian Islands and all waters north of Unimak Pass. Only the Southeast Alaska stock is considered in this application because the other stocks are not found in the geographic area under consideration. The 2016 SAR for this stock further delineated population estimates (Muto et al. 2017). The total estimated annual level of human-caused mortality and serious injury for Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise (n = 34) exceeds the calculated PBR of 8.9 porpoise. However, the calculated PBR is considered unreliable for the entire stock because it is based on estimates from surveys of only a portion (the inside 7 of Southeast Alaska) of the range of this stock as currently designated. Because the total stock abundance estimates are more than 8 years old (with the exception of the 2010-2012 abundance estimates provided for the inland waters of Southeast Alaska) and the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury in U.S. commercial fisheries throughout Southeast Alaska is not known, the Southeast Alaska stock of harbor porpoise is classified as a strategic stock. Population trends and status of this stock relative to its Optimum Sustainable Population are currently unknown.

There are no subsistence use of this species; however, as noted above, entanglement in fishing gear contributes to human-caused mortality and serious injury. Muto et al. (2017) also reports harbor porpoise are vulnerable to physical modifications of nearshore habitats resulting from urban and industrial development (including waste management and nonpoint source runoff) and activities such as construction of docks and other over-water structures, filling of shallow areas, dredging, and noise (Linnenschmidt et al. 2013).

In the action area, harbor porpoises are considered infrequent but could occur during any month with average group size of five individuals; maximum group size is eight individuals (Straley and Pendell 2017).

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok and Ketten 1999; Au and Hastings 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and associated frequencies along with likely best hearing ranges are provided below (note that these frequency ranges correspond to the range for the composite group, with the entire range not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every species within that group). For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information.

• Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz;

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;

• High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz;

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz; and

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.

The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemilä et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).

Five marine mammal species (three cetacean and two pinniped species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Of the cetacean species that may be present, the humpback whale is classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., mysticete species), the killer whale is classified as a mid-frequency cetacean (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species and the sperm whale), and the harbor porpoise is classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., porpoises and Kogia spp.). The Steller sea lion is classified as an otariid while the harbor seal is classified as a phocid.

This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination” section will consider the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, and the “Proposed Mitigation” section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.

The ADOT's construction work involving in-water pile driving and pile removal could effect marine mammals by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the activity area leading to an auditory threshold shifts (TS). NMFS defines a noise-induced TS as “a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level” (NMFS, 2016). The amount of threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB (ANSI 1995, Yost 2007). A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2016), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the hearing and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how animal uses sound within the frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al. 2014), and the overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and spectral). When analyzing the auditory effects of noise exposure, it is often helpful to broadly categorize sound as either impulsive—noise with high peak sound pressure, short duration, fast rise-time, and broad frequency content—or non-impulsive. When considering auditory effects, vibratory pile driving is considered to be non-impulsive source while impact pile driving is treated as an impulsive source.

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS 2016). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see NMFS 2016 for review).

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—NMFS defines TTS as a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2016). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (see Finneran 2014 for a review), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002).

Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.

Exposure to noise from pile driving and removal also has the potential to behavioral disturb marine mammals. Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, moving direction and/or speed, reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding), visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping), avoidance of areas where sound sources are located, and/or flight responses. Pinnipeds may increase their haul-out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). These potential behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et al. 2003; Southall et al. 2007). For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995; NRC 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003).

In 2016, Alaska DOT documented observations of marine mammals during construction activities (i.e., pile driving and down-hole drilling) at the Kodiak Ferry Dock (see 80 FR 60636 for Final IHA Federal Register notice). In the marine mammal monitoring report for that project (ABR 2016), 1,281 Steller sea lions were observed within the Level B disturbance zone during pile driving or drilling (i.e., documented as Level B take). Of these, 19 individuals demonstrated an alert behavior, seven were fleeing, and 19 swam away from the project site. All other animals (98 percent) were engaged in activities such as milling, foraging, or fighting and did not change their behavior. In addition, two sea lions approached within 20 meters of active vibratory pile driving activities. Three harbor seals were observed within the disturbance zone during pile-driving activities; none of them displayed disturbance behaviors. Fifteen killer whales and three harbor porpoise were also observed within the Level B harassment zone during pile driving. The killer whales were travelling or milling while all harbor porpoises were travelling. No signs of disturbance were noted for either of these species. Given the similarities in activities and habitat and the fact the same species are involved, we expect similar behavioral responses of marine mammals to the specified activity.

The project would occur in an active marine commercial and industrial area. The dock footprint is previously disturbed with abandoned dock structures associate with the former Alaska Pulp Mill in the area. Removing the timber piles would likely benefit the habitat by removing creosote-treated wood. Construction activities at the GPIP dock could have temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat and their prey as a result of elevated noise levels from pile driving and removal; however, any impacts are expected to be minor or temporary. Impact pile driving, the loudest noise source, would last for only 10 minutes per day for six non-consecutive days. No dredging or other construction-related activities that could increase turbidity beyond the localized impacts from pile driving would occur.

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.

Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, Section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as the use of pile hammers has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. As described above, TTS is also a form of Level B harassment. There is some potential for slight auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result (e.g., PTS onset), primarily for mysticetes and/or high frequency species. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency species and otariids (i.e., Steller sea lions). The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.

Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of temporary or permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.

Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).

Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al. 2007, Ellison et al. 2011). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for continuous (e.g. vibratory pile-driving) and above 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving) sources. CBS's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory hammer) and impulsive (impact hammer) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are applicable.

Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).

These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final technical guidance, and are provided in Table 2. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.

When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component (i.e., accumulation of energy) in the new thresholds as well as the weighting functions, we developed an optional User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. We consider the calculated isopleths in conjunction with other operational or biological information to arrive at reasonable estimates of potential Level A harassment. For stationary sources such as pile driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity (i.e., accumulated all energy output by the activity in a 24-hr period), it would incur some degree of PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet and the resulting isopleths are provided in Table 3.

Distances to Level A and Level B thresholds were calculated based on various source levels for a given activity and pile type (e.g., impact hammering 48 in pile, vibratory removal of timber piles) and, for Level A harassment, accounted for the maximum duration of that activity per day using the spreadsheet tool developed by NMFS. For Level B harassment areas, distances were calculated using a practical spreading loss constant (15 log R) and source level. Once the distances to thresholds were calculated, total ensonified area was calculated. For all Level B and some Level A thresholds, land was a limiting factor in determining area. Table 4 contains all calculated distances to Level A and B harassment thresholds.

In this section, we provide the information about the presence, density, or group structure of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.

Data on marine mammals in the project area is limited. Land-based surveys conducted at Sitka's Whale Park occurred from September through May, annually, from 1994 to 2000 (Straley and Pendell, 2017). From 2000 to 2016, Straley also collected marine mammal data from small vessels throughout the year. There are no density data available; therefore, probability of occurrence based on group sightings and typical group sizes were used in take calculations (Table 5).

Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.

Because density data are not available for this area, we used group sighting data as an indicator of how often marine mammals may be present during the 16 days of pile driving/removing activity in consideration of the Level A and B harassment zones. We also considered typical group size to determine how many animals may be present on any given day. For all species, we used the following equation to estimate the number of animals, by species, potentially taken from exposure to pile driving and removing noise: Estimated Take = Number of animals × number of days animals are expected during pile activity by type (Table 6).

The Sitka Whale Park surveys found humpback whale groups may include up to four individuals. Based on sighting frequency which indicates this species is present more often during winter months when the project would occur, we conservatively estimate that a group of 4 humpback whales may occur within the Level A harassment zone (1,210 m and 1,803 m for 30-in and 48-in pile driving respectively) on any two of the six days of impact pile driving and in the Level B harassment zone on any of the 16 days of pile activities. Therefore, Level A take equals 4 whales times 2 days while Level B take equals 4 whales times 16 days.

For killer whales, it is assumed eight killer whales could be present within the Level B harassment zone on any two days of pile activity; therefore, we are proposing to authorize 16 takes. No Level A take is anticipated due to proposed shut down mitigation measures (see Mitigation section).

Harbor porpoise typically travel in groups of five and we anticipate a group could enter the Level A zone on two of the six days of impact pile driving and another group could be present within the Level B zone on two days of the project. Therefore, we anticipate ten Level A takes (five animals × two days) and ten Level B takes (five animals × two days) of harbor porpoise.

Steller sea lions are common in the area during the proposed work with one to ten animals present on any given day of work. We assume that on any day of the 16 days of pile driving, 10 Steller sea lions could be present within Sawmill Cove and another group of 4 Steller sea lions could be present in the farther reaches of the disturbance zone, for a combined Level B exposure of 14 Steller sea lions on each day of pile driving. Therefore, over the course of 16 days of pile driving, we anticipate 224 sea lions may be taken (14 animals × 16 days); however, as described above, this is likely representative of the number of exposures, not individuals taken. No Level A takes of Steller sea lions are anticipated from impact pile driving due to the small harassment zone and mitigation shut down measures (see Mitigation section).

Harbor seals are found in the action area throughout the year but in low numbers. Group size is typically one to two animals. It is anticipated that two harbor seals could be present within the Level A zone every other day of the 6 days of impact pile driving. It is also assumed that a group of 2 harbor seals could be encountered in the Level B disturbance zone during the 16 days of pile driving. Therefore, we anticipate 6 Level A takes (2 animals × 3 days) and 32 Level B takes (2 animals × 16 days) of harbor seals.

Duration is a strong driver in identifying distances to Level A thresholds and this must be balanced with expected animal movement. Although the Technical Guidance user spreadsheet identified Level A harassment distances from vibratory pile driving and removal, these distances are incredibly close to the source and an animal would have to remain that close for extended durations (1-5 hours). In contrast, impact threshold distances are much larger and consider only 10 minutes (400 strikes) of activity, making a Level A take more probabilistic. The CBS proposed to shut down operations should a marine mammal enter the Level A zone (0.3 to 48.4 m depending on pile type and if activity is vibratory pile driving or removing) to avoid Level A take. Because we do not expect a marine mammal to remain at these close distances for long periods of time, we do not believe the potential for Level A take exists and; therefore we are not authorizing Level A take from vibratory pile activities and we are not requiring CBS shut down during any activities involving a vibratory hammer unless an animal comes within 10 m which is a zone established to prevent non-auditory physical injury.

For harbor seals and Steller sea lions, the number of animals potentially present likely reflects the same individuals occurring over multiple days; therefore the number of takes likely represents exposures versus individuals. For all cetacean species, it is likely the calculated takes do reflect the number of individuals exposed because they would be expected to be transiting through the action area, not lingering like pinnipeds.

For purposes of ESA consultation, we looked at probability of Steller sea lions and humpback whales from each DPS that may be found in the action area. For Steller sea lions, we determined the probability of an animal being from the wDPS to be 2 percent while the remaining animals would be from the eDPS (see Description of Marine Mammals section). We also calculated the number of humpback whales that could be from the Mexico and Hawaii DPS. Wade et al. (2016) analyzed humpback whale movements throughout the North Pacific Ocean between winter breeding areas and summer feeding areas, using a comprehensive photo-identification study of humpback whales in 2004-2006 during the SPLASH project (Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of Humpbacks). The analysis found that humpback whales off Southeast Alaska are most likely to be from the Hawaii DPS (93.9% probability) while the Mexico DPS whales have a 6.1 percent probability of occurrence.

In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).

In evaluating how mitigation can ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully balance two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat—which considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented; and the likelihood of effective implementation, and; (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

The following mitigation measures, designed to minimize noise exposure, would be included in the IHA:

• CBS will first attempt to direct pull old, abandoned piles that would minimize noise input into the marine environment; if those efforts prove to be ineffective, they may proceed with a vibratory hammer.

• CBS will operate the vibratory hammer at a reduced energy setting (30 to 50 percent of its rated energy).

• CBS will use a softening material (e.g., high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene on all templates to eliminate steel on steel noise generation.

• A “soft start” technique will be used at the beginning of each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before hammering at full energy. CBS is proposing to initiate noise from vibratory hammers for 15 seconds at reduced energy followed by 1-minute waiting period. The procedure will be repeated two additional times. If an impact hammer is used, CBS will be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one minute waiting period, then two subsequent 3-strike sets. If any marine mammal is sighted within a shut-down zone during the 30 minute survey prior to pile driving, or during the soft start, CBS will delay pile-driving until the animal is confirmed to have moved outside and on a path away from the area or if 15 minutes (for pinnipeds or small cetaceans) or 30 minutes (for large cetaceans) have elapsed since the last sighting of the marine mammal within the shut-downzone. This soft-start will be applied prior to beginning pile driving activities each day or when pile driving hammers have been idle for more than 30 minutes.

• CBS will drive all piles with a vibratory hammer to the maximum extent possible (i.e., until a desired depth is achieved or to refusal) prior to using an impact hammer. CBS will also use the minimum impact hammer energy needed to safely install the piles.

• CBS will implement the shut-down zones identified in Table 7 to minimize harassment.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical to both compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.

Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:

• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density).

• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).

• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.

• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.

• Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat).

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Monitoring Protocols—Monitoring would be conducted before, during, and after pile driving and removal activities. Monitoring will initiate 30 minutes prior to pile driving through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activities. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes.

One land-based protected species observer (PSO) will be present during all pile activity; during impact pile driving, a secondary boat-based PSO will be on watch. The land-based PSO will be located at the GPIP construction site and will be able to view the area across Silver Bay to the west and east of Sugarloaf Point and monitor the mouth of Silver Bay to determine whether marine mammals enter the action area from East Channel of Sitka Sound (the entrance monitoring zone). The PSO will have no other primary duties than watching for and reporting on events related to marine mammals. The PSO will scan the monitoring zone for the presence of listed species for 30 minutes before any pile driving or removal activities take place. Each day prior to commencing in-water work the PSO will conduct a radio check with the construction foreman or superintendent. The PSO will brief the foreman or supervisor as to the shutdown procedures if any marine mammals are observed likely to enter or within a shutdown zone, and will have the foreman brief the crew, requesting that the crew notify the PSO when a marine mammal is spotted. CBS proposed the PSO will work in shifts lasting no longer than 4 hours with at least a 1-hour break between shifts, and will not perform duties as an PSO for more than 12 hours in a 24‐hr period (to reduce PSO fatigue). The PSO will remain onsite each day until all in-water pile driving/removal is completed.

No less than 30 minutes prior to any pile driving, the boat-based PSO will begin monitoring the Level A and B harassment zones A boat-based PSO is not required during timber pile removal due to limited harassment zones. This PSO will transit to the head of Silver Bay to ensure that there are no marine mammals for which take is not authorized or to document species for which take is authorized. The boat-based PSO will communicate with the construction foreman or superintendent once the area is determined to be clear and pile driving activities can begin. The boat-based PSO will then transit back to the construction site and spend the rest of the pile driving time monitoring the area from the boat (see Figure 3 in CBS's application).

If any marine mammals are present within a shutdown zone, pile driving and removal activities will not begin until the animal(s) has left the shutdown zone or no marine mammals have been observed in the shutdown zone for 15 minutes (for pinnipeds) or 30 minutes (for cetaceans). The boat-based PSO will remain near the mouth of Sawmill Cove for the duration of pile driving to monitor for any animals approaching the area.

The following measures also apply to visual monitoring:

(1) Monitoring will be conducted by independent (i.e., not construction personnel) qualified observers, who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience. In addition, all PSOs must have:

(a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;

(b) Advanced education in biological science or related field (undergraduate degree or higher required);

(c) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);

(d) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;

(e) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

(f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and

(g) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.

In addition, CBS must submit to NMFS OPR the curriculum vitae (CV) of all observers prior to monitoring.

NMFS has defined negligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).

Pile driving and removal would result in the harassment of marine mammals within the designated harassment zones due to increased noise levels during 16 days. Six days of work are dedicated to removing 280 old piles, which would emit low levels of noise into the aquatic environment if removed via a vibratory hammer. Vibratory pile driving, which also has relatively low source levels, would occur for only 2 hours per day and there would be at least one day in between pile driving activity when installing the permanent piles. Impact pile driving would result in the loudest sound levels; however, CBS would install only 6 piles with an impact hammer (four 30-in and two 48-in piles) to proof the pile after driving it with a vibratory hammer. Proofing a pile is relatively short-term activity with 400 strikes occurring over 10 minutes per pile. Considering this and the fact only one pile would be installed per day, if PTS occurs, it is likely slight PTS (e.g., PTS onset). Due to the brief duration of expected exposure, any Level B harassment would be temporary and any behavioral changes as a result are expected to be minor.

In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:

• No mortality is anticipated or authorized.

• The number of piles in the design has been reduced to the lowest amount practicable (other designs required more piles); therefore, the amount of pile activity is minimal at 16 days over the course of 3 months.

• Extremely limited impact pile driving would occur (ten minutes per day for six non-consecutive days).

• The project and ensonified areas include a cove and dead-end bay (Silver Bay) with no significant marine mammal habitat.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals.

NMFS is proposing to authorize a very small amount of Level A takes of marine mammals. Level B takes are more numerous and still only constitute between 0.12 and 6.5 percent of a given stock (Table 7). For pinnipeds, the number of takes likely represents repeated exposures of a smaller number of animals; therefore, the percent of stock taken is likely even smaller. Finally, the area where these takes may occur represents a negligible area with respect to each stock's range; therefore, it is unlikely a larger percentage of a stock's population would move through the action area.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.

Alaska Natives have traditionally harvested subsistence resources, including sea lions and harbor seals. In 2012 (the most recent year for which information is available), the community of Sitka had an estimated subsistence take of 49 harbor seals and 1 Steller sea lion (Wolf et al. 2013). CBS contacted the Alaska Harbor Seal Commission, the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission, and the Sitka Tribe of Alaska and these organizations expressed no concerns about the project. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this case with the Alaska Regional Office, whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

NMFS is proposing to authorize take of the wDPS of Steller sea lions and the humpback whale Mexico DPS, which are listed under the ESA. As such, the Permit and Conservation Division has requested initiation of Section 7 consultation with the NMFS Alaska Regional Office for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to CBS for conducting pile driving and removal, Sitka, from October 1, 2017-December 31, 2017, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains the conditions that would be included in the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).

1. This IHA is valid only for takes of marine mammals incidental to pile driving and pile removal associated with the Gary Paxton Industrial Park Dock Modification Project in Sawmill Cove, Alaska.

2. General Conditions

(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the CBS, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.

(b) The species authorized for taking are the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), killer whale (Orcinus orca), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)

(c) The taking, by Level A and B harassment is authorized for humpback whales, harbor porpoises, and harbor seal. Take, by Level B harassment only, is authorized for killer whales and Steller sea lions.

(d) The taking by serious injury or death of any of the species listed in condition 2(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.

(e) The take, by Level A harassment, of killer whales and Steller sea lions is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.

(f) The CBS shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all pile activities, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.

3. Mitigation Measures

The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:

(a) CBS will first attempt to direct pull old, abandoned piles; if those efforts prove to be ineffective, they may proceed with a vibratory hammer.

(b) CBS will operate the vibratory hammer during pile driving at a reduced energy setting (30-50 percent).

(c) CBS will use a will use a softening material (e.g., high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMW)) on all templates to eliminate steel on steel noise generation.

(d) A “soft start” technique will be used at the beginning of each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before hammering at full energy. The soft start requires CBS to initiate noise from vibratory hammers for 15 seconds at reduced energy followed by 1-minute waiting period. The procedure will be repeated two additional times. If an impact hammer is used, CBS will be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one minute waiting period, then two subsequent 3-strike sets. This soft-start will be applied prior to beginning pile driving activities each day or when pile driving hammers have been idle for more than 30 minutes.

(e) If any marine mammal is sighted within a shut-down zone prior to pile-driving, or during the soft start, CBS will delay pile-driving until the animal is confirmed to have moved outside and on a path away from the area or if 15 minutes (for pinnipeds or small cetaceans) or 30 minutes (for large cetaceans) have elapsed since the last sighting of the marine mammal within the safety zone.

(f) CBS will drive all piles with a vibratory hammer until a desired depth is achieved or to refusal prior to using an impact hammer. CBS will also use the minimum impact hammer energy needed to safely install the piles.

(g) For all pile driving and pile removal activities, the entity shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius around the pile. If a marine mammal comes within or approaches the shutdown zone, such operations shall cease. For impact pile driving, CBS shall implement a shutdown zone based on species observed (See Table 2 for minimum radial distances required for shutdown zones).

4. Monitoring

The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine mammal monitoring during all pile driving and pile removal activities. Monitoring and reporting shall be conducted in accordance with the application.

(a) One land-based PSO and one boat-based PSO will be used to monitor the area during all pile driving and removing the temporary piles (no boat-based PSO is required during timber pile removal). The land-based PSO will be located at the GPIP construction site.

(b) The land-based PSO will scan the monitoring zone for the presence of listed species for 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after any pile driving or removal activities take place.

(c) The land-based PSO will work in shifts lasting no longer than 4 hours with at least a 1-hour break between shifts, and will not perform duties as a PSO for more than 12 hours in a 24-hr period. The PSO will remain onsite each day until all in-water pile driving/removal is completed.

(d) No less than 30 minutes prior to any pile driving, the boat-based PSO will begin monitoring the Level B harassment zone. Note a boat-based PSO is not required during timber pile removal. This PSO will transit to the head of Silver Bay to ensure there are no marine mammals for which take is not authorized or to document species for which take is authorized. The boat-based PSO will communicate with the construction foreman or superintendent once the area is determined to be clear and pile driving activities can begin. The boat-based PSO will then transit back to the mouth of Sawmill Cove and spend the rest of the pile driving time monitoring the area from the boat.

(e) Monitoring will be conducted by independent (i.e., not construction personnel) qualified observers, who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience. In addition, all PSOs must have:

(i) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;

(ii) Advanced education in biological science or related field (undergraduate degree or higher required);

(iii) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);

(iv) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;

(v) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

(vi) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and

(vii) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.

(f) In addition, CBS must submit to NMFS the curriculum vitae (CV) of all observers prior to monitoring.

5. Reporting

The holder of this Authorization is required to:

(a) Submit a draft report to NMFS on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within 90 calendar days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring or sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted to NMFS within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report shall include details within the Monitoring Plan and the following:

(i) The amount, by species, of Level A and B takes documented. Total Level B take should be corrected for any area unobserved.

(ii) Detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile driving and removal activities and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any.

(iii) Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such as ability to track groups or individuals.

(b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:

(i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as a serious injury, or mortality, CBS shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:

1. Time and date of the incident;

2. Description of the incident;

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

4. Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

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

6. Fate of the animal(s); and

7. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).

Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with CBS to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. CBS may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.

(ii) In the event that CBS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), CBS shall immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.

The report must include the same information identified in 5(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with CBS to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.

(iii) In the event that CBS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), CBS shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. CBS shall provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.

6. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.

We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed pile driving and removal. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.

Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Small Business Programs; OMB Control Number 0704-0386.

Needs and Uses: DoD needs this information to improve administration under the small business subcontracting program and to evaluate a contractor's past performance in complying with its subcontracting plan.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 41.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 41.

Average Burden per Response: About 1 hour.

Annual Response Burden Hours: 41.

Frequency: On occasion.

This information collection includes requirements relating to DFARS part 219, Small Business Programs. The information collection requirement at DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, becomes necessary when: (1) A prime contractor has identified specific small business concerns in its subcontracting plan; and (2) subsequent to award substitutes one of the small businesses identified in its subcontracting plan with a firm that is not a small business. The intent of this information collection is to alert the contracting officer of this situation.

Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Part 251, Use of Government Sources by Contractors, and an associated clause at DFARS 252.251-7000, Ordering from Government Supply Sources; OMB Control Number 0704-0252.

Needs and Uses: This information collection permits contractors to place orders from Government supply sources, including Federal Supply Schedules, requirements contracts, and Government stock. Contractors are required to provide a copy of their written authorization to use Government supply sources with their order. The authorization is used by the Government source of supply to verify that a contractor is authorized to place such orders and under what conditions.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Type of Request: Revision.

Number of Respondents: 654.

Responses per Respondent: 5.

Annual Responses: 3,270.

Average Burden per Response: .5 hour.

Annual Burden Hours: 1,635.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

This information collection includes requirements relating to DFARS part 251, Contractor Use of Government Supply Sources. The clause at DFARS 252.251-7000, Ordering from Government Supply Sources, requires a contractor to provide a copy of an authorization when placing an order under a Federal Supply Schedule, a Personal Property Rehabilitation Price Schedule, or an Enterprise Software Agreement.

Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS): Evaluation Factor for Use of Members of the Armed Forces Selected Reserve; OMB Control Number 0704-0446.

Needs and Uses: DFARS 215.370-3 prescribes the use of the provision at DFARS 252.215-7005, Evaluation Factor for Employing or Subcontracting with Members of the Selected Reserve, in solicitations that include an evaluation factor to provide a preference for offerors that intend to perform the contract using employees or individual subcontractors who are members of the Selected Reserve. The documentation provided by an offeror with their proposal will be used by contracting officers to validate that Selected Reserve members will be utilized in the performance of the contract. This information collection implements a requirement of section 819 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-163).

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Type of Request: Revision.

Number of Respondents: 13.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 13.

Average Burden per Response: Approximately 20 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 620.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

For solicitations that include the provision at DFARS 252.215-7005, the provision requires offerors to include documentation with their proposal that supports their intent to use employees or individual subcontractors who are members of the Selected Reserve in order to receive a preference under the associated evaluation factor. Such documentation may include, but is not limited to, existing company documentation indicating the names of the Selected Reserve members who are currently employed by the company, or a statement that positions will be set aside to be filled by Selected Reserve members, along with verifying documentation.

DoD invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Regular Generic Clearance for the Collection of NGA Customer Satisfaction Strategy Survey; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to garner qualitative and quantitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient and timely manner and is motivated by the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, early warning of issues with service, and otherwise focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services.

Type of Review: New.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 29,285.

Average Expected Annual Number of Activities: 8.

Below we provide projected average estimates for the next three years:

Average Number of Respondents per Activity: 500.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 29,285.

Average Burden per Response: 13.89 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 6,779.5 hours.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected]. Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Industrial Capabilities Questionnaire; DD Form 2737; OMB Control Number 0704-0377.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to provide the adequate industrial capability analyses to indicate a diverse, healthy, and competitive industrial base capable of meeting Department demands. Additionally, the information is required to perform the industrial assessments required by Chapter 148, section 2502 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code; and to support development of a defense industrial base information system as required by Section 722 of the 1992 Defense Production Act, as amended, and Section 802 of Executive Order 12919.

Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Annual Burden Hours: 153,600.

Number of Respondents: 12,800.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 12,800.

Average Burden per Response: 12 hours.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Respondents are companies/facilities specifically identified as being of interest to the Department of Defense. Industrial Capabilities Questionnaire DD Form 2737 records pertinent information needed to conduct industrial base analysis for senior DoD leadership to ensure a robust defense industrial base to support the warfighter.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Pre-embarkation Certificate of Disinsection, DD Form X773; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to provide proof of aircraft disinsection to foreign countries that require it, before cargo and aircrew will be allowed to dis-embark in those countries.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 166.67.

Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 1,000.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondents are DoD-contracted pest managers. These pest management professionals would be required to fill out the certificate of disinsection, log it in the appropriate database, and provide a copy to the aircrew. Aircraft disinsection (spraying with insecticide to kill all insects aboard) is currently required in 14 countries for arriving military aircraft. Most of those countries also require documentation proving that the aircraft was disinsected, per their instructions in the Foreign Clearance Guide (FCG). The burden for this collection is calculated based on the number of times U.S. aircraft currently enter countries with the requirement to produce a certificate of disinsection. The certificates used, are unique to each of the countries with the requirement. They are not collections managed by the U.S. Government. The Armed Forces Pest Management Board (AFPMB) published Technical Guide (TG) for pest managers and aircrew to follow. This guide standardizes our requirements for disinsection in the FCG for all countries our aircraft enter. One such requirement is the use of a standardized form by all DoD that satisfies the documentation requirements of disinsection for these 14 countries.

Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Overseas Citizen Population Survey; 0704-0539.

Type of Request: Revision.

Number of Respondents: 18,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 18,000.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 3,000 hours.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary for Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), an agency of the Department of Defense, to fulfill the mandate of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA of 1986 [42 U.S.C. 1973ff]). UOCAVA requires a statistical analysis report to the President and Congress on the effectiveness of assistance under the Act, a statistical analysis of voter participation, and a description of State/Federal cooperation. The data obtained through this study will allow FVAP to refine its methodology for estimating the number of overseas U.S. civilians who are eligible to vote and who have registered and participated in the past, and using these estimates to address the question of whether the registration and voting propensity of the overseas civilian population differs from that of a comparable domestic or military populations. Conducting this research will help FVAP meet its federal and congressional mandates in terms of reporting annually on its activities and on overall voter registration and participation rates after each Presidential election. The data obtained through this study is also intended to provide insights into existing barriers to UOCAVA voting and recommendations for addressing these challenges.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

Title: FERC-523, Application for Authorization for the Issuance of Securities or the Assumption of Liabilities.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0043.

Type of Request: Three-year approval of the FERC-523 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: The information collected by FERC-523 is required to implement the statutory provisions of section 204 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824c). Under section 204 of the FPA no public utility or licensee shall issue any security, or assume any obligation or liability as guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person, until the public utility applies for and receives Commission approval by order authorizing the issue or assumption of the liability. The Commission issues an order if it finds that such issue or assumption (a) is for lawful object, within the corporate purposes of the applicant and compatible with the public interest, which is necessary or appropriate for or consistent with the proper performance by the applicant as a public utility, and which will not impair its ability to perform that service, and (b) is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.

The Commission uses the information contained in filings to determine its acceptance and/or rejection of applications for authorization to either issue securities or to assume an obligation or liability by the public utilities and their licensees who submit these applications.

The specific application requirements and filing format are found at 18 CFR part 34; and 18 CFR 131.43 and 131.50. This information is filed electronically.

Type of Respondents: Public utilities subject to the Federal Power Act.

Estimate of Annual Burden 1 : The Commission estimates the reduction in the annual public reporting burden for the FERC-523, as follows:

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

Sycamore LLC is agreeing to perform a removal action to clean up soil and soil gas contaminated with chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, and with aromatic VOCs, including benzene, toluene, and xylene. The removal action will reduce the risk to future users of the property and the surrounding community from exposure to contamination primarily caused by historical dry cleaning operations at the property. Under the terms of the settlement, Sycamore LLC will complete the removal action and pay EPA's costs for oversight of the cleanup activities. In exchange, Sycamore LLC will receive a covenant not to sue from the United States.

EPA will consider all comments submitted by the date set forth above and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

This notice is organized as follows:

Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act establishes the renewable fuel standard (“RFS”) program, under which EPA sets annual percentage standards specifying the amount of renewable fuel, as well as three subcategories of renewable fuel, that must be used to reduce or replace fossil fuel present in transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel. With limited exceptions, renewable fuel produced at facilities that commenced construction after enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA”), must achieve at least a twenty percent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as compared to baseline 2005 transportation fuel. Advanced biofuel and biomass-based diesel must achieve at least a fifty percent reduction, and cellulosic biofuel must achieve at least a sixty percent reduction.

As part of changes to the RFS program regulations published on March 26, 2010 1 (the “March 2010 RFS rule”) to implement EISA amendments to the RFS program, EPA identified a number of renewable fuel production pathways that satisfy the greenhouse gas reduction requirements of the Act. Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 of the RFS regulations lists three critical components of approved fuel pathways: (1) Fuel type; (2) feedstock; and (3) production process. In addition, for each pathway, the regulations specify a “D code” that indicates whether fuel produced by the specified pathway meets the requirements for renewable fuel or one of the three renewable fuel subcategories. EPA may independently approve additional fuel pathways not currently listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 for participation in the RFS program, or a party may petition for EPA to evaluate a new fuel pathway in accordance with 40 CFR 80.1416. Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA received petitions from Green Vision Group, Tracy Renewable Energy, and Plant Sensory Systems, submitted under partial claims of confidential business information (CBI), requesting that EPA evaluate the GHG emissions associated with biofuels produced using sugar beets as feedstock, and that EPA provide a determination of the renewable fuel categories, if any, for which such biofuels may be eligible.

EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall GHG impacts of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use. The results of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the weight of available evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel meets the necessary GHG reductions required under the CAA for it to be considered renewable fuel or one of the subsets of renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis includes an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, including feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel production, fuel transportation and distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect emissions, such as indirect emissions from land use changes and agricultural sector impacts.

This document describes EPA's analysis of the GHG emissions from feedstock production and feedstock transport associated with sugar beets when used to produce biofuel, including significant indirect impacts. This notice considers a scenario in which non-cellulosic beet sugar (primarily sucrose, glucose and/or fructose) is extracted for conversion to biofuel and the remaining beet pulp co-product is used as animal feed. As will be described in Section II, we estimate the GHG emissions associated with production and transport of sugar beets for use as a biofuel feedstock are approximately 45 kilograms of CO2-equivalent per wet short ton (kgCO2e per wet short ton) of sugar beets.2 Based on these results, we believe biofuels produced from sugar beets through recognized conversion processes could qualify as advanced biofuel and/or conventional (non-advanced) renewable fuel, depending on the type and efficiency of the fuel production process technology used. EPA is seeking public comment on its analysis of greenhouse gas emissions related to sugar beet feedstock production and transport.

If appropriate, EPA will update this analysis based on comments received in response to this notice. EPA will use this updated analysis as part of the evaluation of facility-specific petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that propose to use sugar beets as a feedstock for the production of biofuel.3 Based on this information, EPA will determine the GHG emissions associated with petitioners' biofuel production processes, as well as emissions associated with the transport and use of the finished biofuel. EPA will combine these assessments into a full lifecycle GHG analysis used to determine whether the fuel produced at an individual facility satisfies the CAA GHG emission reduction requirements necessary to qualify as renewable fuel or one of the subcategories of renewable fuel under the RFS program.

Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris, (commonly known as sugar beets) of the order Caryophylalles, is a widely cultivated plant of the Altissima group. Sugar beets are cultivated for their high percentage concentration of sucrose in their root mass. Domestication of the plant group took place approximately 200 years ago in Europe to selectively breed for sugar content from crosses between Beta vulgaris cultivars, including chard plants and fodder beets.4

Sugar beets are a biennial crop species grown across a wide tolerance of soil conditions in areas of temperate climate, and tend to be grown in rotation with other plant varieties.5 Sugar beets are grown for their relatively high sugar content, approximately 13 to 18 percent of the plant's total mass, with around three quarters of the plant mass comprised of water.6 Once harvested, sugar beets are highly perishable and need to be processed in a short period of time.7

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the largest region for sugar beet production is the area of the Red River Valley of western Minnesota and eastern North Dakota, and sugar beets are commonly grown at agricultural scale across five regions of the country, encompassing 11 states.8 Western regions tend to require more irrigation while sugar beets grown in the eastern U.S. region make greater use of natural rainfall.9

Since the mid-1990s, sugar beets have accounted for about 55 percent of sugar production in the U.S.10 Sugar beets are included in the U.S. sugar program, designed to support domestic sugar prices through loans to sugar processors. The U.S. sugar program also includes a marketing allotment that sets the amount of sugar that domestic processors can sell in the U.S. for human consumption, and provides quotas on the amount of sugar that can be imported into the U.S.11 Sugar produced under the program cannot be used for biofuel purposes with an exception for surplus sugar made available under the USDA Feedstock Flexibility Program that specifically directs the excess sugar to be used for the purpose of domestic biofuel production.12

Like other sugars, beet sugar can be fermented and used as a feedstock for biofuel production. The non-cellulosic sugars of sugar beets, the vast majority of which is sucrose, can be converted directly into a refined sugar available for processes such as alcoholic fermentation to produce biofuels (e.g., ethanol).13 Much of the water needed for the fermentation process is provided by the sugar beets themselves. Sugar beet pulp is a fibrous co-product of the beet sugar extraction process.14 The sugar beet pulp is often dried to reduce transportation costs and is widely sold as feed supplement for cattle and other livestock.15 While biofuel production from beet sugar has historically been limited in the U.S., sugar beets accounted for about 17 percent of European ethanol production in 2014.16

EPA evaluated the upstream GHG emissions associated with using sugar beets as a biofuel feedstock based on information provided by USDA, petitioners, and other data sources. Upstream GHG emissions include emissions from production and transport of sugar beets used as a biofuel feedstock. The methodology EPA used for this analysis is generally the same approach used for the March 2010 RFS rule for lifecycle analyses of several other biofuel feedstocks, such as corn, soybean oil, and sugarcane.17 The subsections below describe this methodology, including assumptions and results of our analysis.

The analysis EPA prepared for sugar beets used the same set of models that were used for the March 2010 RFS rule, including the Forestry and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM) developed by Texas A&M University for domestic impacts, and the Food and Agricultural Policy and Research Institute international models as maintained by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (FAPRI-CARD) at Iowa State University for international impacts. For more information on the FASOM and FAPRI-CARD models, refer to the March 2010 RFS rule preamble (75 FR 14670) and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).18 Several modifications were made to the domestic and international agricultural economic modeling that differed from previous analyses in order to accurately represent the U.S. sugar program.19 Memoranda to the docket include detailed information on model inputs, assumptions, calculations, and the results of our assessment of the upstream GHG emissions for sugar beet biofuels.20 We invite comments on the scenarios and assumptions used for this analysis, in particular on the key assumptions described in this section.

Sugar beets grown under the U.S. sugar program cannot be used for the purpose of biofuel production, except under very limited conditions specified in the Feedstock Flexibility Program.21 Therefore, for this analysis, EPA assumed that there would be no change in sugar production on U.S. sugar program-designated acres because of demand for beet sugar for biofuel feedstock use.22 In our modeling, growers selling sugar beets to sugar processors under the U.S. sugar program in the control case continued to do so regardless of new demand for sugar beets as a biofuel feedstock in the test case. As a result of this assumption, in our modeling, demand for acreage to grow sugar beets for biofuel feedstock could only be fulfilled by converting acres from other crops besides sugar beets, and/or from other land uses besides crop production (e.g., pastureland, Conservation Reserve Program land).

Our analysis also considers the significant restrictions on the trade of sugar beets between the U.S. and other countries. The U.S. does not export beet sugar, as this would violate the terms of participation in the sugar program. While the U.S. does import cane sugar under international agreements, it does not import raw beet sugar.23 Beet sugar may only enter the U.S. as refined sugar from Canada or Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and similar trade agreements, or as components of sugar-containing products.24 This quantity is strictly regulated. EPA is unaware of existing trade agreements that would allow raw beet sugar imports for any purpose, including biofuel production. This makes it unlikely that beet sugar would be imported for use as biofuel feedstock.

Although sugar beets were modeled as grown in the U.S., we also intend that this analysis would cover sugar beets grown and processed into biofuels from other countries and imported to the U.S. as finished biofuel. We expect the vast majority of beet sugar-based biofuel used in the U.S. will come from sugar beets produced in the U.S., and incidental amounts of fuel from crops produced in other nations will not impact our average GHG emissions. Sugar beets require similar climatic regions as those where they are grown in the U.S., and would similarly impact crops such as wheat in those regions while sugar beet pulp would displace corn as livestock feed. Therefore, EPA interprets this upstream analysis as applicable, regardless of the country of origin assuming that sugar beet pulp is used as a livestock feed supplement.

To assess the impacts of an increase in sugar beet demand for renewable fuel production, EPA modeled two scenarios: (1) A control case with “business-as-usual” assumptions 25 and no biofuel production from sugar beets and (2) a sugar beet biofuel case where 300 million ethanol-equivalent gallons of biofuels are assumed to be from beet sugar in 2022, requiring the use of 12 million wet short tons of sugar beets for biofuel production. The analysis presented in this notice considered all GHG emissions associated with the cultivation and production of sugar beets intended for biofuel feedstock use, as well as emissions from transporting these sugar beets to a biofuel production facility. In lifecycle analysis literature these emissions are often referred to as the “upstream” emissions, because they occur upstream of the fuel production facility (i.e., before the biofuel feedstock arrives at that facility).

The analysis presented in this notice does not include fuel production or “downstream” emissions, which consists of emissions associated with fuel transport and fuel combustion. Once comments on the upstream emissions described in this notice have been considered, we intend to combine the upstream analysis with the fuel production and downstream emissions associated with fuel produced at an individual biofuel facility to determine the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with that fuel. This lifecycle analysis would reflect any differences in emissions that may exist between producing different types of biofuels from sugar beets. Our analysis of the upstream emissions associated with sugar beets assumed that non-cellulosic sugars are extracted from the beets before the sugars are converted, and that the beet pulp would then be sold into feed markets. Fuel production methods that also convert the pulp into fuel (e.g., through pyrolysis of the beet) or use the pulp for other purposes may not be compatible with this analysis.

We evaluated a scenario with biofuels produced from this amount of sugar beets for multiple reasons. Although biofuel production from sugar beets is currently small in the U.S., recent trends in domestic sugar beet yields and acreage indicate that 12 million wet short tons of sugar beets could be produced as biofuel feedstocks if a significant market demand emerged. An additional 12 million wet short tons of sugar beets would represent a 34 percent increase in U.S. sugar beet cultivation compared to 2015 levels.26 According to USDA data, harvested acres of sugar beets since 2010 were, on average, about 30 percent lower than their most recent peak levels in the 1990s, an average difference of approximately 360,000 harvested acres.27 Increasing beet yields over time has reduced the number of acres needed to satisfy production targets under the U.S. sugar program.28 National average sugar beet yields since 2010 have been approximately 25 percent higher than yields during the 1990s, and reached almost 31 wet short tons per acre in the 2015 crop year.29 Were beet acres to return to their 1990s peak, the additional approximately 360,000 harvested acres would produce about 11.2 million wet short tons of beets at these 2015 yield levels. However, based on the steady increase in yields over time, it seems likely that beet yields will continue to increase between now and 2022. If national average beet yields reach at least 33.4 wet short tons per acre by 2022, a fairly modest increase of about 8 percent over 2015 levels, an additional 12 million wet short tons of beets could be produced on these additional 360,000 acres. Since further expansion of beet area beyond the historical peak is also possible, an increase in beet production of 12 million wet short tons appears to be very feasible. We welcome comment on this assumption.

In our analysis, FASOM allowed for sugar beet production in all areas of the continental 48 states where sugar beets had been grown historically, including states and areas that do not currently take part in the U.S. sugar program. The model was allowed to determine which of these regions would be optimal for growing sugar beets for biofuel feedstock, based on least cost of production and transport, and considering the opportunity cost of using that land for other uses (e.g., to produce other crops, grazing, forestry). The factors that contributed to these crop production choices include crop yield, input quantities, and growing strategies.

Following the methodology established in the March 2010 RFS rule, EPA used the FAPRI model to evaluate the international impacts of producing and transporting 12 million wet short tons of sugar beets for biofuel production in the U.S. The FAPRI model included a representation of the U.S. sugar program, and modeled domestic sugar production as a function of this program. Production and consumption levels in the U.S. were set according to the parameters of the sugar program and were not affected by market forces. Because the existing U.S. sugar production module in FAPRI did not respond to market forces, for modeling purposes EPA had to make assumptions regarding in which regions sugar beets for biofuel feedstock use would be grown. Crop yields and the quantity of crop area displaced by expanded sugar beet production also had to be set by assumption, since the U.S. sugar module in FAPRI lacks market forces to create demand-pull for new beet acres. In order to derive the quantity of crop area displaced, EPA used a crop yield of approximately 26 wet short tons per acre, the 10-year national average yield for sugar beets (for crop years 2005 through 2014).30 Actual yields on any given acre may be higher or lower than this assumed value, based on factors such as location, annual variation in growing conditions, growing practices, and crop rotation strategies. Because the FAPRI analysis assumed to displace acres in North Dakota and California, we did not believe that it was appropriate to use the USDA 2022 national average projections for sugar beets yield. As an alternative, EPA believes using the 10-year national average was a reasonable assumption for our international agricultural sector modeling. The increase in sugar yield trends over the last few decades suggests that future yields are unlikely to be lower than the 10-year average. As further support for our yield assumptions in FAPRI, we note that FASOM projected sugar beet yields in 2022 that are close to the assumptions used in FAPRI.31 We welcome comment on this assumption.

For the purposes of FAPRI modeling, EPA assumed that sugar beets for fuel use would be produced in equal amounts in North Dakota and California for the following reasons: At the onset of our analysis, these were the regions with indications of significant sugar beet biofuel interest.32 They are also both regions with a long history of sugar beet production. As a simplifying assumption, EPA assumed that all crops grown in each of these regions were displaced by sugar beets proportionally to their crop area in the control case. We recognize there are significant differences in the way the sugar beet biofuel scenarios were implemented in FASOM and FAPRI for this analysis. For example, FASOM chose to produce all sugar beets for biofuels in North Dakota, whereas in FAPRI we modeled this production in North Dakota and California by assumption. Since these modeling exercises occurred concurrently, not sequentially, we could not anticipate what choices FASOM would make at the outset of our FAPRI modeling. This led to some differences in the regions utilized to produce beets. However, the nationwide agricultural market results projected by FASOM and FAPRI were similar, due to similar dominant trends in feed markets and crop exports at the national level. The similarity of these relevant national market results between the two models, despite differences in U.S. growing regions, indicates that the international impacts projected by the FAPRI model would not have been significantly different if we had applied the growing assumptions from FASOM. These results are discussed below and are available in the docket for this notice.33 We welcome comment on these assumptions and our results.

The sugar beet scenario modeled included a number of key assumptions, such as biofuel and pulp yields per wet short ton of beets, and the amount of corn livestock feed displaced per pound of pulp. These key assumptions are discussed below. Information on additional assumptions, including sugar beet crop inputs (e.g., fertilizer, energy) is available in the docket for this notice.

In conducting research for this analysis, we located sources for beet pulp yield of 0.06 dry short tons of sugar beet pulp per wet short tons of sugar beets 34 and displacement rates of 0.9 pounds of corn feed displaced in cattle diets 35 for every pound of sugar beet pulp. In livestock production, the fibrous sugar beet pulp is used as a roughage replacement making it of use primarily for ruminants rather than other types of livestock.36 In our analysis, sugar beet pulp use by the livestock market was an important factor leading to GHG reductions. Therefore this notice evaluates only using the non-cellulosic portion of sugar beets for biofuel production.

On the basis of least cost, FASOM chose to grow all sugar beets in North Dakota, with approximately 477,000 acres of land required to grow the additional sugar beets.

The vast majority of the new sugar beet acres in North Dakota was from displacement of other crops rather than from new cropland (432,000 acres from displaced crops, or nearly 91 percent of needed acres). Increasing sugar beet production in North Dakota primarily displaced wheat acreage, but also soybeans, corn, and hay among other crops.37 Most of these displaced crops shifted to other U.S. regions, and some crops, such as soybeans, shifted to new acreage that was more productive than the North Dakota acres from where they were displaced. Table II.1 indicates that production levels for hay, soy, and most other crops are maintained.38 However, national crop area and production for wheat and corn declined significantly.

The reductions in corn and wheat production were driven by different proximate causes (though both were ultimately driven by increased demand for sugar beets) and led to somewhat different impacts on commodity use and trade. In the case of wheat, the decline in production led to a decline in exports. As shown in Section II.B.3, the decline in wheat exports created pressure on international wheat markets and wheat production increased outside the U.S.

In the case of corn, the potential market impacts were mitigated by the increased availability of sugar beet pulp into U.S. feed markets as a result of beet sugar biofuel production. As described in Section II.A, sugar beet pulp is a co-product used as livestock feed supplement, mainly substituting for corn. Based on the FASOM results for 2022, approximately 1.4 billion pounds of sugar beet pulp were produced and sent to the feed market. In turn this displaced approximately 1.2 billion pounds of corn, which was significantly greater than the approximately 867 million pounds of corn production lost to displaced acres. This led to a decrease in total demand for corn in U.S. markets and, as a result, U.S. exports of corn increased. As discussed in Section II.B.3 below, this reduced the price of corn internationally and lessened the demand pull for corn to be grown in other countries.

The rest of the needed sugar beet acres in North Dakota, approximately 46,000 acres, came from new cropland, particularly from cropland pasture (high-value pasture land that can also be utilized as cropland with minimal preparation) and from acres that would otherwise take part in the Conservation Reserve Program. Pasture area rose modestly in some other states causing the conversion of some forest acres to pasture. This relatively small decrease in forestland pushed up prices slightly for forest products, leading foresters to intensify growth on their stands. Relative to other feedstocks EPA has evaluated for the RFS program, these domestic shifts in land use were minor, and after the various land use changes were considered the net domestic land use change emissions impacts were close to zero.

In the FAPRI model, the expansion of sugar beet cropland used to produce biofuel feedstock also led to increases in corn exports and decreases in wheat exports. Similar to the drivers of the domestic results discussed in Section II.B.2, beet production displaced wheat acres, but the beet pulp co-product reduced domestic demand for corn. Further, the magnitude of these export impacts was quite similar between the two models, as shown in Table II.2 below.40

With sugar beet pulp displacing corn feed, FAPRI modeling indicated that in 2022, both corn production and acreage would decline globally. Production outside the U.S. of certain other crops however increased in response to U.S. increasing demand for sugar beets; most significantly wheat and soybeans. Wheat increased internationally in terms of both production and acreage, with a strong response particularly in India. Soybean acres and production also increased, particularly in Brazil. Table II.3 below summarizes the non-U.S. increases in harvested area by crop type, while Table II.4 shows which countries had the largest impacts.

As increasing sugar beet pulp use for livestock feed in the U.S. freed up more corn for export, international livestock feed prices declined modestly, and with it was a small rise in meat production globally. Many of these changes occurred in Brazil and this caused some expansion in grazing land, including in the Amazon region. This caused further international land use change impacts, as shown in Table II.4 below.

When harvested, sugar beets are heavy and perishable; therefore, transport of sugar beets from field to processing site is expected to occur over short distances. Information from stakeholders and literature states that sugar beets used for biofuels are shipped by truck from point of production to the plant with typical distances for transport around 30 miles.43 GHG emissions for the transport of sugar beets are based on emission factors developed for the March 2010 RFS rule for trucks including capacity, fuel economy, and type of fuel used.44

As described above, EPA analyzed the GHG emissions associated with feedstock production and transport. Table II.5 below breaks down by stage the calculated GHG upstream emissions for producing biofuels from sugar beets in 2022.

Net agricultural emissions included domestic and international impacts related to changes in crop inputs such as fertilizer, energy used in agriculture, livestock production, and other agricultural changes in the scenario modeled. Increased demand for sugar beets resulted in positive net agricultural emissions relative to the control case. Compared with other crops, sugar beets required relatively high levels of agricultural chemical inputs (e.g., herbicides and pesticides).45 Domestic land use change emissions were close to zero for sugar beets, as described in Section II.B.2.

International land use change emissions increased as a result of demand for sugar beets. The increase in international land use change emissions for sugar beets was significantly larger than the decrease in domestic land use change emissions. This is because increased demand for sugar beets led to a significant reduction in key U.S. crop exports (e.g., wheat exports), but very little change in domestic consumption of agricultural goods. These greater international emissions led to a net increase in global land use change emissions. Feedstock transport included emissions from moving sugar beets from the farm to a biofuel production facility, as described in Section II.B.4 above.

Sugar beets are suitable for the same biofuel conversion processes as sugarcane. In Europe, where sugar beets are widely used as biofuel feedstock, virtually all of the fuel is non-cellulosic beet sugar ethanol produced through fermentation with the beet pulp sold into the feed markets. Based on these data, and on information from our petitioners and other stakeholders, EPA anticipates that most biofuel produced from sugar beets in the U.S. would also be from the non-cellulosic sugars via fermentation. Our upstream analysis would apply for all facilities where non-cellulosic beet sugar is converted to biofuel and the co-product beet pulp is used as animal feed.

Given the importance of the beet pulp co-product on the upstream GHG emissions associated with beet pulp, pathways that do not produce a beet pulp feed coproduct, or use it for purposes other than animal feed, may not be compatible with our analysis. EPA would likely need to conduct supplemental upstream GHG analysis in order to determine the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with fuels produced under these types of pathways.

After reviewing comments received in response to this action, EPA will combine the evaluation of upstream GHG emissions associated with the use of sugar beet feedstock with an evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with individual producers' production processes and finished fuels to determine whether fuel produced at petitioners' facilities from the sugar in sugar beets satisfy the CAA lifecycle GHG emissions reduction requirements for renewable fuels. Each biofuel producer seeking to generate Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) for non-grandfathered volumes of biofuel from sugar beets will need to submit a petition requesting EPA's evaluation of their new renewable fuel pathway pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 of the RFS regulations, and include all of the information specified at 40 CFR 80.1416(b)(1).46

Because EPA is evaluating the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of sugar beet feedstock through this notice and comment process, petitioners requesting EPA's evaluation of biofuel pathways involving sugar beet feedstock need not include the information for new feedstocks specified at 40 CFR 80.1416(b)(2). Based on our evaluation of the upstream GHG emissions attributable to the production and transport of sugar beet feedstock, including our assumptions regarding the average yield of ethanol in mmBtu per wet short ton of sugar beets used, EPA anticipates that if a facility produces emissions of no more than approximately 23 kgCO2e/mmBtu of ethanol, the fuel produced would meet the 50 percent advanced biofuel GHG reduction threshold.47 If a facility produces no more than 53 kgCO2e/mmBtu of ethanol, EPA anticipates it would meet the 20 percent renewable fuel GHG reduction threshold. EPA will evaluate petitions for fuel produced from sugar beet feedstock on a case-by-case basis, and will make adjustments as necessary for each facility including consideration of differences in the yield of ethanol per wet short ton of sugar beets used.48 We welcome comments on this application of our upstream analysis.

Sugar beets were not listed on the Federal noxious weed list nor did they appear on USDA's composite listing of introduced, invasive, and noxious plants by U.S state.49 50 Based on consultation with USDA, EPA does not believe sugar beets pose a risk of invasiveness at this time. Current cultivars of sugar beets require extensive weed management to survive.51 However, USDA notes that future cross breeding, hybridization, and genetic manipulation could change the invasiveness potential of beets, in which case a re-evaluation may be required.52 Based on currently available information, EPA does not believe monitoring and reporting of data for invasiveness concerns would be a requirement for biofuel producers generating fuel from sugar beets at this time.

EPA invites public comment on its analysis of GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of sugar beets as a feedstock for biofuel production. This notice analyzes a non-cellulosic sugar beet-to-biofuel production process. Although EPA has not received a petition for cellulosic sugar beet biofuel production, the agency is aware of interest in this process and invites comment on the analysis of beet pulp and its effect on agricultural markets. EPA will consider public comments received when evaluating petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that involve pathways using sugar beets as a feedstock.

Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the scientific and technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB will hold a public meeting to discuss and deliberate on the topics below. The chartered SAB will conduct quality reviews of three draft reports. The SAB quality review process ensures that all draft reports developed by SAB panels, committees or workgroups are reviewed and approved by the Chartered SAB before being finalized and transmitted to the EPA Administrator. These reviews are conducted in a public meeting as required by FACA.

Quality Review of the draft SAB Review of EPA's Draft Assessment entitled Toxicological Review of Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX): The National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) in the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) develops toxicological reviews/assessments for various chemicals for IRIS. NCEA is developing a draft IRIS assessment for Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) and has asked the SAB to peer review the draft document. The draft will be a reassessment of RDX. NCEA's draft Toxicological Review of Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) currently posted to the IRIS database includes an oral reference dose (RfD) (posted in 1988), and a cancer descriptor and oral cancer slope factor (posted in 1990). Epidemiological data, experimental animal data, and other relevant data from studies of the noncancer and cancer effects of RDX are being evaluated in this reassessment. The reassessment is expected to include an updated RfD and oral cancer assessment. Background on the current advisory activity, IRIS Assessment for Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) can be found on the SAB Web site at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/50370BADC61C408685257E380077D825?OpenDocument.

Quality Review of the draft SAB report on Economy-wide Modeling of the Benefits and Costs of Environmental Regulation: The EPA requested that the SAB provide review of the EPA's modeling and ability to measure full regulatory impacts and to make recommendations on the use of economy-wide modeling frameworks to characterize the social costs, benefits, and economic impacts of air regulations with the aim of improving benefit-cost and economic impact analyses used to inform decision-making at the agency. As a first step, the EPA has asked the SAB to provide feedback on its draft charge questions and analytic blueprint. Background on the current advisory activity, Economy-wide Modeling of the Benefits and Costs of Environmental Regulation can be found on the SAB Web site at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/LookupWebProjectsCurrentBOARD/07e67cf77b54734285257bb0004f87ed!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.1#2.

Quality review of a draft SAB review report on the Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO 2 Emissions from Stationary Sources: In 2012, the SAB completed a review of the first draft accounting framework addressing scientific and technical issues associated with biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO 2 Emissions from Stationary Sources (September 2011). The EPA subsequently revised the 2011 framework and requested the SAB to conduct a review of the Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO 2 Emissions from Stationary Sources (November 2014). The purpose of the 2014 framework is to develop a method for calculating the adjustment, or Biogenic Assessment Factor (BAF), for carbon emissions associated with the combustion of biogenic feedstocks taking into account the biological carbon cycle effects associated with their growth, harvest and processing. The SAB convened the Biogenic Carbon Emissions Panel to review the framework. Background on the current advisory activity, Biogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources—Assessment Framework can be found on the SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/Biogenic%20CO2%20Framework?OpenDocument.

Briefings and updates: The SAB will receive updates from SAB members on the current activities of committees and panels developing advisory reports and briefings on future topics from the EPA staff.

Availability of Meeting Materials: A meeting agenda and other materials for the meeting will be placed on the SAB Web site at http://epa.gov/sab.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office.

Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the EPA's charge, meeting materials, or the group providing advice. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for the SAB to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly.

Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes. Persons interested in providing oral statements at the August 29-30, 2017, meeting should contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by August 21, 2017 to be placed on the list of registered speakers. Written Statements: Written statements for the August 29-30, 2017, meeting should be received in the SAB Staff Office by August 21, 2017, so that the information can be made available to the SAB for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO at the contact information above via email (preferred) or in hard copy with original signature. Submitters are requested to provide a signed and unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Carpenter at the phone number or email address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

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).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.

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.

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 pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.

1. PP 6E8503. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0600). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.589 for residues of the fungicide, boscalid, 3-pyridinecarboxamide,2-chloro-N-(4′-chloro[1,1′-biphenyl]-2-yl) in or on Vegetable, legume, edible-podded, subgroup 6A from 1.6 ppm to 5.0 ppm. Gas chromatography using mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical in dry and succulent beans and peas. Contact: RD.

2. PP 6E8484. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254). IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests that upon establishing tolerances for this petition under “New Tolerances” above, 40 CFR part 180.475 is amended to remove existing tolerances for residues of the fungicide difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4- chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, including its metabolites and degradates, to be determined by measuring only difenoconazole in or on brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.9 ppm, brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 35 ppm; grape at 4.0 ppm; and turnip, greens at 35 ppm. Contact: RD.

3. PP 6F8517. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0639). Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., 2255 N. 44th St., Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ 85008, requests to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.415 for residues of the fungicide, aluminum tris (O-ethylphosphonate), in or on Fruit, citrus, group 10 from 5.0 ppm to 9.0 ppm. Adequate enforcement methodology available in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM II, Method II) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical in the above citrus group. Contact: RD.

1. PP 6F8514. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0185). FMC Corporation, FMC Tower at Cira Centre South, 2929 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide, plant regulator, and nematocide Bacillus licheniformis strain FMCH001 in or on all food commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because an analytical method for residues is not applicable. It is expected that, when used as proposed, Bacillus licheniformis strain FMCH001 would not result in residues that are of toxicological concern. Contact: BPPD.

2. PP 6F8515. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0186). FMC Corporation, FMC Tower at Cira Centre South, 2929 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide and plant regulator Bacillus subtilis strain FMCH002 in or on all food commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because an analytical method for residues is not applicable. It is expected that, when used as proposed, Bacillus subtilis strain FMCH002 would not result in residues that are of toxicological concern. Contact: BPPD.

1. PP 6E8484. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254). IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.475 for residues of the fungicide difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4- methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, including its metabolites and degradates, to be determined by measuring only difenoconazole in or on brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 35 ppm; cranberry at 0.6 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 4.0 ppm; guava at 3.0 ppm; kohlrabi at 2.0 ppm; papaya at 0.6 ppm; and vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 2.0 ppm. Available analytical methods for crops include gas chromatography (GC) equipped with a nitrogen -phosphorous detector; and LC/MS/MS; and for meat, milk, poultry or eggs, Syngenta's method, AG544A, is used to measure and evaluate the chemical difenoconazole. Contact: RD.

2. PP 6F8499. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0752). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide benzovindiflupyr in or on Sugarcane, cane, at 0.3 parts per million (ppm). The GRM042.03A and GRM042.04A for plant products are used to measure and evaluate the chemical benzovindiflupyr. Contact: RD.

3. PP 6F8522. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0754). Nufarm Americas Inc., 4020 Aerial Center Parkway, Suite 101, Morrisville, NC 27545., requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the bactericide/fungicide oxytetracycline in or on citrus, group 10-10, at 0.6 parts per million (ppm) and citrus, dried pulp, at 1.2 ppm. The LC/MS/MS is used to measure and evaluate the chemical oxytetracycline, utilizing turbo ion spray in the positive ionization mode. Contact: RD.

4. PP 6F8542. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0167). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide benzovindiflupyr in or on grasses grown for seed, hay at 7 parts per million (ppm); grasses grown for seed, straw at 6ppm and grasses grown for seed, forage at .15 ppm. The GRM042.03A and GRM042.04A methods for plant products are used to measure and evaluate the chemical benzovindiflupyr. Contact: RD.

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. EPA received the following applications to register new active ingredients:

File Symbol: 279-GARA. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0187. Applicant: FMC Corporation, FMC Tower at Cira Centre South, 2929 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Product name: Bacillus licheniformis strain FMCH001 Technical. Active ingredient: Fungicide, plant regulator, and nematocide—Bacillus licheniformis strain FMCH001 at 100.0%. Proposed use: For manufacturing use only.

File Symbol: 279-GARI. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0187. Applicant: FMC Corporation, FMC Tower at Cira Centre South, 2929 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Product name: F4018-4. Active ingredients: Fungicide, plant regulator, and nematocide—Bacillus licheniformis strain FMCH001 at 3.50% and Bacillus subtilis strain FMCH002 at 4.00%. Proposed use: A biological fungicide and nematocide for seed treatment use to control listed fungal diseases and provide protection from listed soil nematodes.

File Symbol: 279-GARO. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0187. Applicant: FMC Corporation, FMC Tower at Cira Centre South, 2929 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Product name: F4022-1. Active ingredients: Insecticide, fungicide, plant regulator, and nematocide—Bifenthrin at 16.3% and Bacillus licheniformis strain FMCH001 at 1.0%. Proposed use: For mixing directly with liquid fertilizer to control listed soil pests.

File Symbol: 279-GART. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0187. Applicant: FMC Corporation, FMC Tower at Cira Centre South, 2929 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Product name: Bacillus subtilis strain FMCH002 Technical. Active ingredient: Fungicide and plant regulator—Bacillus subtilis strain FMCH002 at 100.0%. Proposed use: For manufacturing use only.

On April 28, 2017, (82 FR 19718), the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collections described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the renewal of these collections, and again invites comment on this renewal.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:

1. Title: Application for Waiver of Prohibition on Acceptance of Brokered Deposits.

OMB Number: 3064-0099.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: Section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act prohibits undercapitalized insured depository institutions from accepting, renewing, or rolling over any brokered deposits. Adequately capitalized institutions may do so with a waiver from the FDIC, while well-capitalized institutions may accept, renew, or roll over brokered deposits without restriction. This information collection captures the burden associated with preparing and filing an application for a waiver of the prohibition on the acceptance of brokered deposits.

There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is a result of economic fluctuation. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response remain the same.

2. Title: Management Official Interlocks.

OMB Number: 3064-0118.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: The FDIC's Management Official Interlocks regulation, 12 CFR 348, which implements the Depository Institutions Management Interlocks Act (DIMIA), 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208, generally prohibits bank management officials from serving simultaneously with two unaffiliated depository institutions or their holding companies but allows the FDIC to grant exemptions in appropriate circumstances. Consistent with DIMIA, the FDIC's Management Official Interlocks regulation has an application requirement requiring information specified in the FDIC's procedural regulation. The rule also contains a notification requirement.

There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is a result of economic fluctuation as well as the change in complexity of the reporting institutions. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response have increased due to the complexity of the reporting institutions.

3. Title: Interagency Statement on Sound Practices Concerning Complex Structured Finance Transactions.

OMB Number: 3064-0148.

Form Number: Interagency Statement on Sound Practices Concerning Elevated Risk Complex Structured Finance Activities.

Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: The Interagency Statement on Sound Practices Concerning Complex Structured Finance Transactions describes the types of internal controls and risk management procedures that the Agencies believe are particularly effective in assisting financial institutions to identify, evaluate, assess, document, and control the full range of credit, market, operational, legal and reputational risks. A financial institution that engages in complex structured finance transactions should maintain a set of formal, written, firm-wide policies and procedures that are designed to allow the institution to identify and assess these risks.

There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is a result of economic fluctuation. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response remain the same.

4. Title: Regulatory Capital Rules.

OMB Number: 3064-0153.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: State nonmember banks, state savings associations, and certain subsidiaries of those entities.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: This collection comprises the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements associated with minimum capital requirements and overall capital adequacy standards for insured state nonmember banks, state savings associations, and certain subsidiaries of those entities. The data is used by the FDIC to evaluate capital before approving various applications by insured depository institutions, to evaluate capital as an essential component in determining safety and soundness, and to determine whether an institution is subject to prompt corrective action provisions.

There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is a result of economic fluctuation. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response remain the same. The overall reduction in burden hours also reflects a decrease in the number of entities that will incur any one-time implementation burden, as a majority of the entities have already fully implemented the one-time requirements associated with the rule.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-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. No comments were received in response to the 60-day comment period. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Hospice Facility Cost Report; Use: Providers of services participating in the Medicare program are required under §§ 1815(a), 1833(e), and 1861(v)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395g) to submit annual information to determine costs for health care services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. In addition, regulations at 42 CFR 413.20, 413.24 and 418.310 require adequate cost data and cost reports from providers on an annual basis. The Form CMS-1984-14 cost report is needed to determine a provider's reasonable costs incurred in furnishing medical services to Medicare beneficiaries. The data is used by CMS to calculate: Market basket weight and the labor related shares, Rate setting and payment refinement, and Medicare and total facility margins for Medicare-covered services by type of service. Form Number: CMS-1984-14 (OMB control number: 0938-0758); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private sector—Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 3,545; Total Annual Responses: 3,545; Total Annual Hours: 666,460. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Yaakov Feinstein at 410-786-3137.)

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement without change of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Electronic Submission of Medicare Graduate Medical Education (GME) Affiliation Agreements; Use: Sections 1886(h)(4)(F) and 1886(d)(5)(B)(v) of the Act establish limits on the number of allopathic and osteopathic FTE residents that hospitals may count for purposes of calculating direct GME payments and the indirect medical education (IME) adjustment. In addition, under the authority granted by section 1886(h)(4)(H)(ii) of the Act, the Secretary issued regulations on May 12, 1998 (63 FR 26358) to allow institutions that are members of the same Medicare GME affiliated group to elect to apply their direct GME and IME FTE resident caps based on the aggregate cap of all hospitals that are part of a Medicare GME affiliation group. Under those regulations, specified at § 413.79(f) for direct GME and at § 412.105(f)(1)(vi) for IME, hospitals that are part of the same Medicare GME affiliated group are permitted to adjust each hospital's caps to reflect the rotation of residents among affiliated hospitals during an academic year. Under § 413.75(b), a Medicare GME affiliated group may be formed by two or more hospitals if: (1) The hospitals are located in the same urban or rural area or in a contiguous area and have a shared rotational arrangement as specified at § 413.79(f)(2); (2) the hospitals are not located in the same or in a contiguous area, but have a shared rotational arrangement and they are jointly listed as the sponsor, primary clinical site, or major participating institution for one or more programs as these terms are used in the most recent publication of the Graduate Medical Education Directory, or as the sponsor or is listed under “affiliations and outside rotations” for one or more programs in Opportunities, Directory of Osteopathic Post-Doctoral Education Programs; or (3) effective beginning July 1, 2003, two or more hospitals are under common ownership and have a shared rotational arrangement under § 413.79(f)(2). Form Number: CMS-10326 (OMB control number: 0938-1111); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Business or other For-profit and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 125; Total Annual Responses: 125; Total Annual Hours: 166. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Renate Dombrowski at 410-786-4645.)

3. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Community Mental Health Center Cost Report; Use: Providers of services participating in the Medicare program are required under sections 1815(a) and 1861(v)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395g) to submit annual information to achieve settlement of costs for health care services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. In addition, regulations at 42 CFR 413.20 and 413.24 require adequate cost data and cost reports from providers on an annual basis. The Form CMS-2088-17 cost report is needed to determine a provider's reasonable costs incurred in furnishing medical services to Medicare beneficiaries and reimbursement due to or due from a provider. The primary function of the cost report is to collect data that is used by CMS to support program operations, payment refinement activities and to make Medicare Trust Fund projections. Form Number: CMS-2088-17 (OMB control number: 0938-0037); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private Sector (Business or other for-profits, Not-for-Profit Institutions); Number of Respondents: 219; Total Annual Responses: 219; Total Annual Hours: 19,710. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Jill Keplinger at 410-786-4550.)

4. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement without change of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: CMS Enterprise Identity Management; Use: HIPAA regulations require covered entities to verify the identity of the person requesting Personal Health Information (PHI) and the person's authority to have access to that information. Per the HIPAA Security Rule, covered entities, regardless of their size, are required under Section164.312(a)(2)(i) to “assign a unique name and/or number for identifying and tracking user identity.” A `user' is defined in Section 164.304 as a “person or entity with authorized access”. Accordingly, the Security Rule requires covered entities to assign a unique name and/or number to each employee or workforce member who uses a system that receives, maintains or transmits electronic PHI, so that system access and activity can be identified and tracked by user. This pertains to workforce members within health plans, group health plans, small or large provider offices, clearinghouses and beneficiaries. Federal law requires that CMS take precautions to minimize the security risk to the Federal information system. FIPS PUB 201—1 Para 1.2: “Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD 12), signed by the President on August 27, 2004, established the requirements for a common identification standard for the identification of credentials issued by Federal Departments and agencies to Federal employees and contractors (including contractor employees) for gaining physical access to Federally controlled facilities and logical access to Federally controlled information systems. HSPD 12 directs the department of Commerce to develop a Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) publication to define such a common identification credential.” Form Number: CMS-10452 (OMB control number: 0938-1236); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Individuals and Households; Number of Respondents: 750,000; Total Annual Responses: 750,000; Total Annual Hours: 300,000. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Robert Burger at 410-786-2125.)

5. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: Health Care Reform Insurance Web Portal Requirements 45 CFR part 159; Use: In accordance with the provisions of the ACA referenced above, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services created a Web site called healthcare.gov to meet these and other provisions of the law, and data collection was conducted for six months based upon an emergency information collection request. The interim final rule published on May 5, 2010 served as the emergency Federal Register notice for the prior information collection request. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed the request under emergency processing and approved it on April 30, 2010.

CMS updated the web portal system where state Departments of Insurance and issuers log in using a custom user ID and password validation. The states are asked to provide information on issuers in their state and various Web sites maintained for consumers. The issuers are also tasked with providing information on their major medical insurance products and plans. They are ultimately given the choice to download a basic information template to enter data then upload into the web portal; to manually enter data within the web portal itself; or to submit .xml files containing their information. Once the states and issuers submit their data, they will receive an email notifying them of any errors, and that their submission was received.

CMS mandates that issuers verify and update their information on a quarterly basis and requests that States verify State-submitted information on an annual basis. In the event that an issuer enhances its existing plans, proposes new plans, or deactivates plans, the organization would be required to update the information in the web portal. Changes occurring during the three month quarterly periods will be allowed utilizing effective dates for both the plans and rates associated with the plans. Form Number: CMS-10320 (OMB control number: 0938-1086); Frequency: Annually, Quarterly; Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 305; Total Annual Responses: 5,500; Total Annual Hours: 89,725. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Kim Heckstall at 410-786-1647).

6. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Annual MLR and Rebate Calculation Report and MLR Rebate Notices; Use: Under Section 2718 of the Affordable Care Act and implementing regulation at 45 CFR part 158, a health insurance issuer (issuer) offering group or individual health insurance coverage must submit a report to the Secretary concerning the amount the issuer spends each year on claims, quality improvement expenses, non-claims costs, Federal and State taxes and licensing and regulatory fees, the amount of earned premium, and beginning with the 2014 reporting year, the amounts related to the reinsurance, risk corridors, and risk adjustment programs established under sections 1341, 1342, and 1343, respectively, of the Affordable Care Act. An issuer must provide an annual rebate if the amount it spends on certain costs compared to its premium revenue (excluding Federal and States taxes and licensing and regulatory fees) does not meet a certain ratio, referred to as the medical loss ratio (MLR). Each issuer is required to submit annually MLR data, including information about any rebates it must provide, on a form prescribed by CMS, for each State in which the issuer conducts business. Each issuer is also required to provide a rebate notice to each policyholder that is owed a rebate and each subscriber of policyholders that are owed a rebate for any given MLR reporting year. Additionally, each issuer is required to maintain for a period of seven years all documents, records and other evidence that support the data included in each issuer's annual report to the Secretary.

Under Section 1342 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and implementing regulation at 45 CFR part 153, issuers of qualified health plans (QHPs) must participate in a risk corridors program. A QHP issuer will pay risk corridors charges or be eligible to receive payments based on the ratio of the issuer's allowable costs to the target amount. Each QHP issuer is required to submit an annual report to CMS concerning the issuer's allowable costs, allowable administrative costs, premium, and proportion of market premium in QHPs. Risk corridors premium information that is specific to an issuer's QHPs is collected through a separate plan-level data form, which is included in this information collection. Additionally, each QHP issuer is required to maintain for a period of ten years all documents, records and other evidence sufficient to enable the evaluation of the issuer's compliance with applicable risk corridors standards.

On May 2, 2017, CMS published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register (82 FR 20481) for the public to submit written comments on this information collection; the public comment period closed on July 3, 2017. As part of the 60-day notice, CMS updated its annual burden hour estimates to reflect the actual numbers of submissions, rebates and rebate notices.

CMS received a total of six comments on a number of specific issues regarding the notice of the revised MLR PRA package. CMS has taken into consideration all of the comments and has modified the information collection instruments and instructions (the 2016 MLR Annual Reporting Form and Instructions; no comments were submitted on the 2016 Risk Corridors Plan-Level Data Form and Instructions) in order to correct errors and to provide additional clarifications. These modifications do not affect the previously estimated burden hours or costs. Form Number: CMS-10418 (OMB Control Number: 0938-1164); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector, Business or other for-profits and not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 545; Number of Responses: 2,532; Total Annual Hours: 200,597. (For policy questions regarding this collection, contact Christina Whitefield at (301) 492-4172.)

Program Name: Institute of Community Inclusion.

Award Amount: $350,000.00.

Statutory Authority: The Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act of 2000.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 93.631.

Program Description: The Administration on Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities, an agency of the U.S. Administration for Community Living, has been funding the ICI for thirty-five years. The project's activities include: Studying the effectiveness of state developmental disabilities agencies and vocational rehabilitation agencies in promoting full inclusion of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities through employment and other community activities; describing national trends in the employment and economic status of youth and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities on a state and national basis; highlighting practices and outcomes in the transition from school to employment and promote policy enhancing integrated employment at both the systems and customer levels; developing guidelines for community-based non-work activities; implementing www.statedata.info, a Web site illustrating service system investment in day and employment services, and www.realworkstories.org, a Web site featuring successes of youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities in paid jobs in their communities; provide an online catalog of innovative state-level strategies that influence policy and facilitate access to integrated employment; collaborate with the University of Minnesota and the University of Colorado to show targeted current year and longitudinal data on the project Web site and providing a create-a-chart option allowing reports to be customized. The project provides comparative nationwide longitudinal study of the employment trends of people with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities and is a thirty-five year body of work.

Agency Contact: For further information or comments regarding this supplemental action, contact Katherine-Cargill-Willis, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201; telephone 202-795-7322; email [email protected].

Program Name: Residential Information Systems Project.

Award Amount: $350,000.00.

Statutory Authority: The Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act of 2000.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 93.631.

Program Description: The Administration on Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities, an agency of the U.S. Administration for Community Living, has been funding the RISP for thirty-five years. The project's activities include: Utilizing a large multistate database on individuals with developmental disabilities to examine the associations between personal characteristics, housing, financing and support models, state systems on inclusion, self-determination, satisfaction, and outcomes; conducting state policy and program surveys on key topics in residential and other community services; maintaining a clearinghouse of information and resources on consumer-controlled housing, the direct support workforce, and community living outcomes; collaborating with the University of Massachusetts and the University of Colorado to show targeted current year and longitudinal data on the project Web site and providing a create-a-chart option allowing reports to be customized. The comparative nationwide longitudinal study of the residential settings where people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and supports is a forty year body of work.

Agency Contact: For further information or comments regarding this supplemental action, contact Katherine Cargill-Willis, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201; telephone 202-795-7322; email [email protected].

Program Name: State of the States on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

Award Amount: $350,000.00.

Statutory Authority: The Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act of 2000.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 93.631.

Program Description: The Administration on Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities, an agency of the U.S. Administration for Community Living, has been funding the State of the States project for thirty-five years. The project's activities include: A analyzing developmental disabilities financial and programmatic trends in each state and the District of Columbia; identifying trends and innovations in the financing of family support supported living, and supported employment in the states; completing special studies, such as Medicaid spending for special education; collaborating with the University of Massachusetts and the University of Minnesota to show targeted current year and longitudinal data on the project Web site and providing a create-a-chart option allowing reports to be customized. The comparative nationwide longitudinal study of public financial commitments and programmatic trends in developmental disabilities services and supports is a thirty-year body of work.

Agency Contact: For further information or comments regarding this supplemental action, contact Katherine-Cargill-Willis, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201; telephone 202-795-7322; email [email protected].

GDUFA (Pub. L. 112-144, Title III) was signed into law by the President on July 9, 2012. GDUFA is designed to speed the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and to improve the review process for ANDAs. GDUFA enables FDA to assess user fees to support critical and measurable enhancements to FDA's generic drugs program.

On August 27, 2012, FDA announced the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers” (77 FR 51814). On September 10, 2013, FDA announced the availability of a revised version of this guidance (78 FR 55261). The comment period on the revised draft guidance ended on December 11, 2013 (78 FR 70953). FDA received several comments on the draft guidance, and these comments as well as FDA's experience implementing GDUFA were considered as the guidance was finalized.

This guidance is intended to provide answers to common questions from generic drug industry participants and other interested parties involved in the development and/or testing of generic drug products regarding FDA's implementation of GDUFA. This guidance includes three categories of questions and answers: Self-identification of facilities, sites, and organizations; review of generic drug submissions; and inspections and compliance. The draft versions of this guidance also addressed the subject of fees. The portion of the draft guidance relating to fees was updated and finalized in November 2016 (81 FR 81774, November 18, 2016).

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers Related to Self- Identification of Facilities, Review of Generic Drug Submissions, and Inspections and Compliance.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Consumer Antiseptic Wash Final Rule Questions and Answers.” We are issuing this guidance in accordance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121, as amended by Pub. L. 110-28) 1 to assist small businesses in better understanding and complying with the consumer antiseptic wash final rule (September 6, 2016, 81 FR 61106), which established that certain active ingredients used in OTC consumer antiseptic wash products are not GRASE. This guidance explains the scope of the final rule and identifies which active ingredients were found not to be GRASE for use in consumer antiseptic wash products. This guidance explains when and how manufacturers must comply with the final rule. This guidance also explains the significance of triclosan and triclocarban under this final rule. In addition, this guidance identifies which consumer antiseptic wash active ingredients were deferred from the final rule and explains what the effectiveness and safety criteria are for these deferred consumer antiseptic wash active ingredients.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on how small businesses can better understand and comply with the consumer antiseptic wash final rule. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

Agenda: On October 11 and 12, 2017, the committee will discuss and make recommendations on the topic of patient input into medical device clinical trials. This meeting will provide the opportunity to bring patients, patient organization, FDA, industry, and other medical and scientific experts together for a broader discussion on this important patient-related issue.

This meeting is a key part of FDA's goal to help assure the needs and experiences of patients are included as part of FDA's deliberations involving the regulation of medical devices and their use by patients. For this meeting, FDA is seeking input from the PEAC and the public on topics such as to: (1) Better understand challenges for patients in medical device clinical trials, (2) better understand how patient input and engagement is being used to overcome these challenges (potential solutions), and (3) receive recommendations from the PEAC on top areas for FDA to consider for action.

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

Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before September 20, 2017. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 3:40 p.m. to 4:10 p.m. on October 11, 2017, and approximately 9 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. on October 12, 2017. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before September 12, 2017. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by September 13, 2017.

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

FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams at [email protected], or 301-796-5966 at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings. Please be advised that, for the round table portion of the meeting, FDA will prepare a summary of discussion instead of detailed transcripts.

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

ACTPCMD provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) on policy, program development, and other matters of significance concerning the activities under section 747 of Title VII of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, including dentistry activities. ACTPCMD prepares an annual report describing the activities of the Committee, including findings and recommendations made by the Committee concerning the activities under section 747, including dentistry activities. The annual report is submitted to the Secretary and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Committee also develops, publishes, and implements performance measures and guidelines for longitudinal evaluations of programs authorized under Title VII, Part C, of the PHS Act, and recommends appropriation levels for programs under this Part.

During the August 16, 2017, meeting, ACTPCMD will discuss issues related to the Committee reports under development. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Public participants may submit written statements in advance of the scheduled meeting. Oral comments will be honored in the order they are requested and may be limited as time allows. Requests to submit a written statement or make oral comments to ACTPCMD should be sent to Kennita R. Carter, MD, DFO, using the contact information above at least 3 business days prior to the meeting.

Individuals who need special assistance or another reasonable accommodation should notify Dr. Kennita R. Carter at the address and phone number listed above at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

Abstract: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

The Agency received no comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the May 8, 2017, issue of the Federal Register (82 FR 21392-21393).

Current Actions: Extension of approval for a collection of information.

Type of Review: Extension.

Affected Public: Individuals, households, professionals, public/private sector.

Average Expected Annual Number of Activities: 40.

Respondents per Activity: 25,000.

Annual Responses: 1,000,000.

Frequency of Response: Once per request.

Average minutes per response: 5.

Burden hours: 500,000 hours annually.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 16025 Jacintoport Blvd., Suite B, Houston, TX 77015, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):

Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected]. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 481A East Shore Parkway, New Haven, CT 06512, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):

Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected]. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

Section 224 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715o) provides that debentures issued under the Act with respect to an insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to Section 221(g)(4) of the Act) will bear interest at the rate in effect on the date the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. This provision is implemented in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 203.405, 203.479, 207.259(e)(6), and 220.830. These regulatory provisions state that the applicable rates of interest will be published twice each year as a notice in the Federal Register.

Section 224 further provides that the interest rate on these debentures will be set from time to time by the Secretary of HUD, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, in an amount not in excess of the annual interest rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield of all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of maturities of 15 or more years.

The Secretary of the Treasury (1) has determined, in accordance with the provisions of Section 224, that the statutory maximum interest rate for the period beginning July 1, 2017, is 27/8 percent; and (2) has approved the establishment of the debenture interest rate by the Secretary of HUD at 27/8 percent for the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2017. This interest rate will be the rate borne by debentures issued with respect to any insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to Section 221(g)(4)) with insurance commitment or endorsement date (as applicable) within the latter 6 months of 2017.

For convenience of reference, HUD is publishing the following chart of debenture interest rates applicable to mortgages committed or endorsed since January 1, 1980: