Federal Register Vol. 82, No.154,

Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (21 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is authorized to promulgate regulations designed to ensure that veterinary biological products are pure, safe, potent, and efficacious before a veterinary biological product license may be issued. Veterinary biological products include viruses, serums, toxins, and analogous products of natural or synthetic origin, such as vaccines, antitoxins, or the immunizing components of microorganisms intended for the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of diseases in domestic animals.

APHIS issues licenses to qualified establishments that produce veterinary biological products and issues permits to importers of such products. APHIS also enforces requirements concerning production, packaging, labeling, and shipping of these products and sets standards for the testing of these products. Regulations concerning veterinary biological products are contained in 9 CFR parts 101 to 124.

A field test is generally necessary to satisfy pre-licensing requirements for veterinary biological products. Prior to conducting a field test on an unlicensed product, an applicant must obtain approval from APHIS, as well as obtain APHIS' authorization to ship the product for field testing.

To determine whether to authorize shipment and grant approval for the field testing of the unlicensed product referenced in this notice, APHIS considers the potential effects of this product on the safety of animals, public health, and the environment. Based upon a risk analysis and other relevant data, APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) concerning the field testing of the following unlicensed veterinary biological product:

Requester: Antelope Valley Bios, Inc.

Product: Canine Lymphoma Vaccine, Live Listeria Vector.

Possible Field Test Locations: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas.

This list of possible field test locations includes States with veterinary clinics or oncology centers that will treat dogs, as well as States with resident dogs that receive treatment in another State then return home.

The above-mentioned product consists of a highly attenuated Listeria monocytogenes strain that expresses a human survivin fusion protein. It induces a strong cell-mediated immune response as an aid in the treatment of dogs with lymphomas. It will be administered only in a veterinary clinic or veterinary oncology center by trained personnel.

The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

We are publishing this notice to inform the public that we will accept written comments regarding the EA from interested or affected persons for a period of 30 days from the date of this notice. Unless substantial issues with adverse environmental impacts are raised in response to this notice, APHIS intends to issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) based on the EA and authorize shipment of the above product for the initiation of field tests following the close of the comment period for this notice.

Because the issues raised by field testing and by issuance of a license are identical, APHIS has concluded that the EA that is generated for field testing would also be applicable to the proposed licensing action. Provided that the field test data support the conclusions of the original EA and the issuance of a FONSI, APHIS does not intend to issue a separate EA and FONSI to support the issuance of the associated product license, and would determine that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. APHIS intends to issue a veterinary biological product license for this vaccine following satisfactory completion of the field test, provided no adverse impacts on the human environment are identified and provided the product meets all other requirements for licensing.

The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, P.L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established.

All proposed day-use sites have the six amenities required under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and are similar to other fee sites on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Franklin Lake Caretakers Cabin is a unique overnight opportunity not provided elsewhere on the forest. These proposed new fees are part of a larger fee proposal that includes campground increases and a change in the price of the annual day-use fee. For more information on these sites and the full proposal, visit https://www.fs.usda.gov/CNNF/.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Welcome and oriententation of members,

2. Federal Advisory Committee Act overview,

3. Development of project ranking citeria and voting process,

4. Elect a RAC chairperson,

5. Project proponent presentations, and

6. Review and selection of project proposals.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing at least one week prior to the meeting to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Michael Woodbridge, RAC Coordinator, 631 Coyote Street, Nevada City, California 95959; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 530-478-6109.

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

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Call to order and welcome new members,

2. Elect a new chairperson,

3. Updates on RAC,

4. Title II Funds availabile for projects,

5. Discussion project proposals and make recommendations, and

6. Public comments.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 14, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Bill Meriwether, RAC Coordinator, Homochitto Ranger District, 1200 Highway 184 East, Meadville, Mississippi 39653; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 601-384-2172.

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

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Welcome and oriententation of members,

2. Federal Advisory Committee Act overview,

3. Development of project ranking citeria and voting process,

4. Elect a chairperson,

5. Project proponent presentations, and

6. Review and selection of project proposals.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing at least one week prior to the meeting to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Michael Woodbridge, RAC Coordinator, 631 Coyote Street, Nevada City, California 95959; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 530-478-6109.

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

The administrative procedures at 36 CFR 214, 219, and 218 require the Forest Service to publish notices in a newspaper of general circulation. The content of the notices is specified in 36 CFR 214, 219 and 218. In general, the notices will identify: the decision or project, by title or subject matter; the name and title of the official making the decision; how to obtain additional information; and where and how to file comments or appeals/objection. The date the notice is published will be used to establish the official date for the beginning of the comment or appeal/objection period. The newspapers to be used are as follows:

The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects proposals for Title II funds

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by August 25, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Reuben Montes, RAC Coordinator, Sante Fe NF Supervisor's Office, 11 Forest Lane, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 505 438-5391.

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

The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend project proposals for Title II funds.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by August 15, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Caroline Mitchell, RAC Coordinator, Ouachita NF Supervisor's Office, Post Office Box 1270, Hot Springs, Arkansas; or via facsimile to 501-321-5399.

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

Background

On February 8, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand for the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.1 In February 2017, the Department received timely requests, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to conduct an administrative review of this antidumping duty order from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (the petitioner), the American Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA), and certain individual companies.2 Based upon these requests, on April 10, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation listing 159 companies for which the Department received timely requests for review.3

In July 2017, all parties timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review.4

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, all parties withdrew their requests for review by the 90-day deadline. Accordingly, we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand covering the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Background

On April 10, 2017, based on timely requests for review of 55 companies by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (the petitioner) 1 and of 88 companies by the American Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA) 2 and various Vietnamese companies,3 the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam covering the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.4

On July 7, 2017, Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company withdrew its request for administrative review.5 On July 7, 2017, the petitioner and ASPA withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review of Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company and its various name iterations, as were listed in the Initiation Notice. 6 Subsequently, on July 10, 2017, the petitioner and ASPA also withdrew their respective requests for administrative review of Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd., Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., and Seavina Joint Stock Company and their various name iterations, as were listed in the Initiation Notice. 7 On July 10, 2017, Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd. and Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review; there are no remaining review requests on the record with respect to these companies.8 Additionally, because Seavina Joint Stock Company did not request a review of itself, there are no remaining review requests for Seavina Joint Stock Company.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Because the petitioner, ASPA, and the individual companies all withdrew their requests for administrative review within 90 days of the date of publication of the Initiation Notice, and no other interested party requested a review of these companies, the Department is rescinding this review with respect to these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).9 The administrative review remains active with respect to all other companies for whom a review was initiated.

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, if appropriate.

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

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Background

On December 10, 2012, the Department published its final anti-circumvention inquiry determination, where the record indicated that Salvi was processing Chinese glycine and labeling it to be of Indian origin.1 The Department determined that glycine processed in India of Chinese origin does not change country of origin, and, therefore, Salvi had circumvented the Order. 2 As part of our determination, we stated that Salvi could not take part in a certification process, whereby Salvi's importers could certify that they had not imported Chinese-origin glycine and would not be subject to the antidumping duty rate for Chinese glycine.3 Additionally, we stated that Salvi could also request a CCR if it could show that its exports of glycine to the United States were not processed from Chinese-origin glycine.4 On July 18, 2016, the Department received a request from Salvi to initiate a CCR in order for the Department to determine that the glycine produced by Salvi is no longer processed from Chinese-origin glycine.5 Additionally, Salvi requested that the Department determine that importers of glycine from Salvi are eligible to participate in a certification process.6 On November 16, 2017, the Department initiated this CCR, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), upon finding that there is sufficient information to warrant a review of the Order. 7

The product covered by this antidumping duty order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. This proceeding includes glycine of all purity levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).8 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.9

We are conducting this CCR in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.10 A list of topics in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice.

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

We preliminarily determine that, since the Circumvention Notice and Final Scope Ruling were issued, Salvi has demonstrated that glycine produced by Salvi is no longer processed from Chinese-origin glycine.

If the Department upholds these preliminary results in the final results, we will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection and allow Salvi's importers of subject merchandise to certify that the glycine being produced and exported is not processed Chinese-origin glycine.

Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal Register.11 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed by no later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs.12 Parties that submit case or rebuttal briefs are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.13 All briefs are to be filed electronically using ACCESS.14 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day on which it is due.15

Any interested party may submit a request for a hearing to the Assistant Secretary of Enforcement and Compliance using ACCESS within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.16 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.17 If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date of the hearing, which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.18

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department extended the deadline of the final results of this CCR to November 3, 2017.19

The Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(i).

Background

On March 6, 2017, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the AD order on uncoated paper from Indonesia.1 On March 31, 2017, the Department received timely requests to conduct an administrative review of two companies: (1) PT. Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk, PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kirnja Tbk, and Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills (PD) (collectively, APP); and (2) PT Anugerah Kertas Utama, PT Riau Andalan Kertas, and APRIL Fine Paper Macao Offshore Limited (collectively APRIL).2 Based upon these requests, on May 9, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review covering the period August 26, 2015, through February 28, 2017, with respect to two companies.3 On June 12, 2017, APP withdrew its request for an administrative review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. APP timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of itself and no other party requested a review of this company. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review with respect to APP, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For APP, the company for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Background

NMFS published a notice of intent to issue EFPs, Scientific Research Permits, Letters of Acknowledgement, and Chartering Permits for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) in 2017 (81 FR 80646, November 16, 2016). Although that notice anticipated a variety of such applications, it also stated that occasionally NMFS receives applications for research activities that were not anticipated, or for research that is outside the scope of general scientific sampling and tagging of Atlantic HMS, or rarely, for research that is particularly controversial and that NMFS will provide additional opportunity for public comment, consistent with the regulations at 50 CFR 600.745 if that were to occur.

As discussed in the November 2016 notice of intent to issue EFPs and related permits, issuance of EFPs and related permits are necessary because HMS regulations (e.g., fishing seasons, prohibited species, authorized gear, closed areas, and minimum sizes) sometimes otherwise prohibit activities that could be undertaken for scientific data collection or other valuable purposes. Thus, under 50 CFR 635.32, and consistent with 50 CFR 600.745, the Director of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries may, through issuance of an EFP, authorize for certain purposes the target or incidental harvest of species managed under a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) or fishery regulations that would otherwise be prohibited. Among the purposes of EFPs are the “conduct of scientific research, the acquisition of information and data, . . . [and] the investigation of bycatch, economic discard and regulatory discard.” 50 CFR 635.32(a)(1). These permits exempt permit holders from the specific portions of the regulations (e.g., fishing seasons, prohibited species, authorized gear, closed areas, and minimum sizes) that may otherwise prohibit the collection of HMS for public education, public display, or scientific research. The terms and conditions of individual permits are unique. EFPs and related permits are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and/or the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.).

NMFS closed the EFC area to PLL gear year-round in early 2001 (65 FR 47213, August 1, 2000). The closure was implemented to reduce bycatch and incidental catch of overfished and protected species by PLL fishermen who target HMS because there was a noticeable difference in the bycatch of some non-target species (mainly undersized swordfish) between the EFC area and open areas. At the time, Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, West Atlantic bluefin tuna, North Atlantic albacore tuna, and swordfish were overfished with overfishing occurring, and bycatch reduction was a component of rebuilding efforts. In particular, the United States was implementing a 1999 swordfish rebuilding plan, and the closure helped reduce bycatch of undersized swordfish. Several other laws required that NMFS address bycatch in the HMS fisheries, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which required reductions in sea turtle bycatch in the PLL fishery. National Standard 9 of the MSA also requires that fishery management plans minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.

The closure has been in place for more than 15 years now and, since 2001, a number of changes in stock status and fishery management measures have occurred. Specifically, North Atlantic swordfish and North Atlantic albacore tuna have been rebuilt, current international assessments of white marlin and West Atlantic sailfish indicate that overfishing is likely not occurring, and Western Atlantic bluefin tuna is not subject to overfishing, Additionally, the PLL fishery has been required since 2004 to use circle hooks instead of J-hooks to reduce sea turtle bycatch, and individual bluefin tuna quota (IBQ) allocations were implemented in the PLL fishery through Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan in 2014 (79 FR 71509, December 2, 2014). Allowing limited access to the EFC PLL Closed Area for research purposes via an EFP would provide important data from the closed area under these changed conditions. NMFS has not obtained scientific data related to catch and bycatch rates from this area since 2010, and that data suggested that more research was needed due to the small sample size and poor spatial distribution of PLL sets in the research area conducted from 2008-2010. The data resulting from the research under this EFP would be used to assess current bycatch rates during typical commercial fishing operations and to evaluate the effectiveness of the closed area in continuing to reduce bycatch of non-target species (e.g., billfish, undersized swordfish, prohibited species, and protected species). It would also provide more current data about the socio-economic impact of reduced catches of target species (swordfish and tunas) as a result of the closure, assess changes in species availability and distribution over time, and contribute to future stock assessments or other fishery management measures. Among the purposes of EFPs in the regulations are the “conduct of scientific research, the acquisition of information and data . . ., [and] the investigation of bycatch, economic discard and regulatory discard,” and such an EFP would be in furtherance of those purposes (§ 635.32(a)(1)).

NMFS received an application to conduct research from within two different sub-areas in the northern portion of the EFC PLL Closed Area (north and south of 29°50′ N. lat.) and compare those rates to rates obtained from one portion of the open area (for comparative purposes) and published a notice of availability in the Federal Register for a Draft EA and a 30-day public comment period (82 FR 4856; January 17, 2017). On February 15, 2017 (82 FR 10746), NMFS extended the public comment period from February 16, 2017, until March 29, 2017. The EFP application is available for review on the HMS Management Division's Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/compliance/efp/index.html.

NMFS announces the availability of a Final EA that analyzes the potential impacts to the human environment of granting this EFP application for experimental PLL fishing within two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area and one area outside the Closed Area. Among other analyzed impacts, the Final EA projects the annual catches of all HMS species, as well as some non-HMS species interactions, from within two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area and one open area that could be expected to occur. Additionally, the Final EA describes NMFS' rationale for the preferred alternative and other alternatives considered for this research and includes responses to public comments on the Draft EA. The Final EA may be found on the HMS Management Division's Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/compliance/efp/index.html.

During the public comment period NMFS received over 500 comments. The majority of the comments were submitted by recreational fishing constituents opposed to the research project. These commenters stated that the current EFC Closed Area has been effective at rebuilding several fish stocks and increasing recreational fishing opportunities and that it should remained closed to maintain those results and benefits. Several environmental organizations were opposed to the research project primarily because of concerns about what they considered to be excessive levels of bycatch (sharks, billfish, and undersized swordfish) at the level of effort proposed by the EFP applicant, although some groups recognized the need for the research. Comments from HMS commercial fishing industry participants and organizations recognized the need for the research, but expressed reservations that only one company (Day Boat Seafood LLC) would conduct and benefit from the project. As described below, NMFS has made changes to the preferred alternative described in the Final EA, based in part on public comments.

Comment 1: There is no legitimate need for the proposed research project because the effect of pelagic longline (PLL) fishing within the closed area (a nursery for juvenile swordfish) is well-known. Conditions have not changed in the last 15 years.

Response: The EFC PLL Closed Area has been in place for more than 15 years. Since 2001, a number of changes in stock status and fishery management measures have occurred. Specifically, North Atlantic swordfish has been rebuilt since 2009, current international assessments of white marlin and West Atlantic sailfish indicate that overfishing is likely not occurring, West Atlantic bluefin tuna is not subject to overfishing, and North Atlantic albacore tuna has been rebuilt. Additionally, the PLL fishery has been required since 2004 to use circle hooks instead of J-hooks to reduce sea turtle bycatch, and IBQ allocations were implemented in the PLL fishery through Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP in 2014 (79 FR 71509, December 2, 2014). Environmental conditions may have changed thereby affecting migratory patterns and species distributions of Atlantic HMS. Allowing limited access to the EFC PLL Closed Area for research purposes through an EFP would provide important data from the closed area under all of these changed conditions. Thus, the purpose of the research project is to evaluate PLL catches and catch rates of target and non-target species within two sub-areas in the northern portion of the EFC PLL Closed Area and an open area to evaluate the effectiveness of existing area closures at meeting current conservation and management goals under current conditions using standardized PLL gear on a specified number of commercial vessels. Vessels participating in this project would be required to submit electronic logbooks at the end of each set to NOVA Southeastern University; and these data would be available to NMFS upon request. During the project period, 40 percent of all sets would be observed by NMFS-approved observers or scientific research staff. Finally, NMFS would review 100 percent of electronic video monitoring data for all sets conducted under this EFP. The research is of limited scope and would be conducted in only a portion of the EFC PLL Closed Area and, therefore, is not expected to negate the known conservation benefits of the closed area. Among the purposes of EFPs in federal regulations are “the investigation of bycatch, economic discard and regulatory discard,” and this EFP would be in furtherance of those purposes (50 CFR 635.32(a)).

Comment 2: This scientific research project will help to revitalize the U.S. highly migratory species (HMS) PLL fishery. It holds significant promise in evaluating responsible and sustainable ways to catch a larger percentage of swordfish quota allocated to the United States by ICCAT. We support efforts to assess the efficacy of the current closed areas and integrate new technologies into fisheries and fisheries research. Since the closure was implemented, many technological advances have been made in gear modifications, vessel monitoring, and bycatch mitigation tools and techniques that largely mitigate the duration and/or size of the PLL closed areas. Over the 15 years that the closure has been in place, little research has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing closure in meeting current conservation and management goals.

Response: In the short-term, this project is anticipated to provide economic benefit to the vessels participating in the research and could increase U.S. North Atlantic swordfish landings by approximately seven percent, thus more fully utilizing the U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota. In the long-term, this project is anticipated to provide scientific fisheries data to assess current bycatch rates during normal commercial fishing operations and to evaluate the effectiveness of the closed area in continuing to reduce bycatch of non-target species (e.g., billfish, undersized swordfish, prohibited species, and protected species). It will also provide current data about the socio-economic impact of reduced catches of target species (swordfish and tunas) as a result of the closure, electronic vessel monitoring, changes in species availability and distribution over time, and contribute to future stock assessments or other fishery management measures.

Comment 3: The recovery of a once-overfished species (swordfish) does not warrant returning to the kind of fishing that caused overfishing (excessive harvest of juveniles) and created the need for closures in the first place. If closing the EFC area to PLL gear resulted in a stock rebound, then that area is obviously vital to the overall Western Atlantic swordfish stock and should remain permanently closed to PLL vessels.

Response: Issuance of this EFP would not represent a return to the level of fishing that contributed to overfishing of swordfish (including excessive harvest of juveniles). Specifically, this project is limited to six PLL vessels and 720 sets (with 480 sets distributed between two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area and the remainder occurring in the open area). Additionally, a historical comparison of the PLL fishery prior to 2001 to current conditions indicates a very different situation. The overall number of vessels landing swordfish has declined from 168 in 2001 to 90 vessels in 2016/2017 (to date). There has also been a decline in the number of PLL hooks fished from 7.6 million to 5.8 million. Several other time/area closures and gear restricted areas (GRAs) have been implemented since 2001, including the Desoto Canyon, Charleston Bump, and Northeastern closures, and the Cape Hatteras and Gulf of Mexico GRAs. Circle hooks now are required throughout the PLL fishery and weak hooks are required in the Gulf of Mexico. Electronic video monitoring systems (EM) are installed and must be utilized on all PLL vessels. Finally the individual bluefin quota (IBQ) program, which requires that sufficient IBQ be possessed prior to PLL fishing, may further limit effort in some circumstances. As described in Section 8.5 of the 2016 HMS SAFE Report, the result is that reported numbers of swordfish kept and discarded, large coastal sharks kept, and BAYS tunas kept from 2005-2015 decreased by more than the predicted values developed in Regulatory Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP. Reported discards of pelagic sharks and all billfish also declined by more than the predicted values developed in Regulatory Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP (swordfish kept: −41 percent; swordfish disc. −63 percent; LCS kept: −93 percent; BAYS kept: −36 percent; pelagic sharks disc. −32 percent; billfish disc. −53 percent).

Comment 4: NMFS should support conservation and sustainable fishing activities related to recreational fishing. Please do not reverse the progress that the EFC PLL Closed Area has made to recreational fisheries.

Response: Fishing activity conducted under this EFP is not anticipated to reduce recreational fishing opportunities for Atlantic HMS or to adversely affect the stocks that are recreationally fished. Recreational fishermen will still be able to go fishing off the eastern Florida coast, and the limited activities in this EFP are not expected to result in negative effects for recreationally-fished stocks. Successful recreational and commercial PLL fishing activities currently occur simultaneously in many areas of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean.

Comment 5: The Draft EA has not evaluated or discussed a number of possible reasonable alternatives that would meet the purpose and the need of the research project and could have less adverse impact to the human environment. The duration of the research should be reduced and data combined with data from the research conducted in the closed area from 2008-2010. The research project should be limited to the minimal number of sets and hooks necessary for statistical validity.

Response: NMFS analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives that are feasible to accomplish the purpose and need of the project, which is to evaluate PLL catches and catch rates of target and non-target species within two sub-areas of the northern portion of the EFC PLL Closed Area and compare those to an open area. These included not issuing an EFP (no action) and a smaller and larger geographic area (Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively). NMFS also analyzed both the level of effort proposed by the applicant and a lesser amount of fishing effort commensurate with current fishing effort. In the Final EA and EFP, NMFS has reduced the number of sets authorized from the requested (and previously-preferred) level of 1,080 sets/year to 720 sets/year and the number of hooks per set from 750 hooks/set to 600 hooks/set. These numbers are commensurate with current levels of fishing effort by the participating vessels.

A reduction in the duration of the project would not provide adequate sampling over time to account for seasonal variations in environmental conditions that may occur and thus would not meet the purpose and need of the EFP. Analysis of research data collected from 2008-2010 was used to develop projections for this EFP; however, changes in conditions since 2008-2010 prevent the combination of data sets. Although the previous research did obtain some significant results, the sample size was small and the spatial distribution of sets was poor. These results suggested that additional research was needed, and the current project size was designed to correct the errors in sample size and spatial distribution in the previous research.

Comment 6: There is an implication that if the United States does not catch every swordfish allotted to it, then it will lose its quota to other nations. Although this argument has been around for years, the United States has not lost any swordfish quota.

Response: The United States has, to date, been successful in protecting its North Atlantic swordfish quota at ICCAT, despite significant underharvest of the quota in recent years. The United States has argued that restrictions on the U.S. fishery, such as the required use of circle hooks, contributed significantly to the stock's rebuilding and that in light of those sacrifices and the strict conservation measures that benefitted all countries fishing on the stock, the United States should be given some time to revitalize its fishery. The threat of losing quota to other countries without the same conservation measures remains real, and NMFS continues to work with stakeholders to find ways to revitalize the stock while effectively managing the stock and other affected species. NMFS also is required under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT-recommended quota. In 2016, preliminary data indicate that approximately 37 percent of the U.S. swordfish baseline quota and 33 percent of the adjusted quota was landed. Thus, the commenter's suggestion that our concern is catching “every fish” mischaracterizes and understates the quota issue. In the short-term, this research project provides an additional opportunity to harvest the swordfish quota while providing economic benefit to the vessels participating in the research. It is projected to increase U.S. landings of swordfish by approximately seven percent, thus more fully utilizing the U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota. This is not the primary reason for issuing the EFP, which will gather much-needed research from the EFC PLL Closed Area, but the project will help revitalize the North Atlantic swordfish fishery in the near-term.

Comment 7: If this EFP is authorized, it would allow more than 1,000 longlines to be set per year, with over 750 hooks per longline. This means that over 2.25 million additional hooks will be floating off of Florida's coast.

Response: While the preferred alternative in the Draft EA would have authorized up to 1,080 sets per year with 750 hooks per longline, NMFS has modified the preferred alternative in the Final EA and EFP to limit the number of sets to be commensurate with current effort in the open area. NMFS would authorize 720 longline sets per year with up to 600 hooks per set under this EFP. Of those, 480 sets would be authorized to be deployed between two sub-areas in the EFC PLL Closed Area. Thus, 288,000 hooks would be authorized in the EFC PLL Closed Area. NMFS emphasizes that these hooks would not be “additional” hooks, as they would otherwise be deployed in areas currently open off Florida's east coast. This EFP only authorizes an amount of fishing effort commensurate with current levels of effort by participating vessels.

Comment 8: An initial adjustment period should be provided for fishermen participating in the study area to allow them to learn how to fish the Gulf Stream waters and `normalize' techniques and catches before data are collected or used for the purposes of the study. This will allow data to be reflective of experienced fishing practices in the EFC PLL Closed Area, rather than being influenced by data collected while fishermen are learning how to fish in the area.

Response: The vessels and captains authorized to participate in this research project are experienced with fishing in areas immediately adjacent to the EFC PLL Closed Area. It would not be prudent to authorize fishing activities in the closed area without collecting the resultant data. NMFS believes that the participating captains will more quickly adjust their fishing practices while fishing under the provisions and terms and conditions of the EFP, rather being allowed to fish in the closed area without the EFP restrictions. In addition, pending annual review, if the EFP is authorized for an additional two years, variations between years could be recorded to see if changes in catch or bycatch rates occur due to improvements in fishing techniques.

Comment 9: Data collection during this study should be at as high a resolution as possible in order to determine fine-scale differences in catch and bycatch in time and space.

Response: Vessels participating in this project would be required to submit electronic logbooks, including date, time, location, and basic oceanographic conditions, at the end of each set to the research applicant at NOVA Southeastern University. These data would be available to NMFS upon request. The electronic logbook data would be audited every three months by the researcher who would compare randomly selected capture events in the electronic logbook to these events as recorded by electronic video data. NMFS will review one hundred percent of the electronic video data during the project. In addition, all existing reporting requirements would apply to participating vessels including logbook reporting and observer coverage requirements, which include latitude and longitude fields.

Comment 10: We recommend a maximum mainline length of 5 miles, allowable soak times no longer than 3-4 hours, and retrieval of the gear in the order in which it was deployed. Reducing the amount of time that hooks are in the water could enhance the survival of fish and other animals caught incidentally or that must be released according to regulation.

Response: The purpose of this study is to collect commercial fishery data from PLL vessels using normal fishing methods to effectively assess the difference between the closed and open area effects during such operations. Reducing the mainline length and soak times would not be representative of how commercial PLL vessels normally fish their gear. However, research investigating shorter mainline lengths, soak times, and gear retrieval techniques would be valuable and NMFS will consider these recommendations for future research.

Comment 11: Some commenters stated that, if the project were to take place, it should have an unbiased observer coverage rate of 100 percent of all sets and that the EA must be supplemented with a defensible observer coverage rate to support the proposed project. Conversely, other commenters stated that the level of monitoring is excessive, because observer coverage is expensive, and a 33 percent coverage rate, in addition to 100 percent electronic video monitoring, may unnecessarily increase project costs and create an expensive precedent for future similar research.

Response: We recognize that authorizing access to the EFC PLL Closed Area by commercial fishing vessels to conduct research warrants a high degree of oversight and monitoring. NMFS believes that an observer coverage rate of 40 percent is appropriate, given that additional funding has been obtained to ensure that 100 percent of electronic video monitoring data for all sets conducted under this EFP would be reviewed and the costs of 100 percent observer coverage would be prohibitive. Furthermore, 100 percent observer coverage is unnecessary given the other monitoring measures in place for this project. Forty percent observer coverage in addition to these other measures will ensure sufficient monitoring and accurate data collection and verification.

Comment 12: Some commenters stated that this project should evaluate expanding the use of EM to all catch and bycatch species. Optimizing the configuration of EM for all catch could improve the reliability of data collected, especially for bycatch species like sharks, and ultimately allow for additional accountability at a reduced cost. Conversely, other commenters stated that this project is not sufficient in scale or scope to support any future decision by NMFS to use EM to record and analyze all catch and bycatch for the purpose of managing the PLL fishery as a whole in open areas. Yet other commenters stated that the project will also evaluate electronic logbooks for more streamlined and real-time reporting that combines catch data with oceanographic information. These data could help better understand where and under what conditions bycatch species occur and how fishermen can best avoid them.

Response: EM equipment became required on all HMS PLL vessels on June 1, 2015. Thus, NMFS has approximately two years' worth of experience using the equipment and analyzing the data. In this project, NMFS will be reviewing one hundred percent of electronic video (EM) data. Thus the project will provide additional experience and data that could help better evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of EM data in recording and identifying all species of catch and bycatch.

Comment 13: This EFP would give the applicant a distinct competitive market advantage with respect to some species, which other boats in the PLL fleet will not have during the project period.

Response: The research project is temporary and relatively short in duration (one year, with a possibility to renew annually twice pending annual review). The vessels fishing in this project would be fishing in the open areas absent this EFP, and there are costs associated with participation in this project. Some increased catch in target species is expected and will, in part, compensate the vessel owners for their participation in the project. Any financial advantages will be limited. The research applicant, not NMFS, selected and worked with the commercial fishing entity to develop this particular research project. Other entities may submit similar applications for EFPs at any time for consideration by NMFS. Such applications would be reviewed and evaluated for merit, based upon a sound scientific study design and other criteria.

Comment 14: This project should engage the participation of captains and crew with the greatest level of experience, including especially those that have prior experience fishing in this EFC area before it was closed. Failure to do this may generate catch and bycatch results that are not truly representative of the entire U.S. HMS PLL fleet. NMFS should allow other vessels or companies to apply and compete for the privilege to participate in the fishing activity specified in the EFP.

Response: The EFP application indicates that experienced PLL fishermen would participate in the project. These vessels and captains are currently fishing in areas immediately adjacent to the EFC PLL Closed Area. NMFS did not select the participating vessels. The EFP applicant and principal investigator selected the participants based upon their experience and the amount of fishing effort and methods needed to accomplish the objectives of the research.

Comment 15: Allowing PLL vessels in the EFC Closed Area will likely drive down stock abundance by killing dusky sharks, white sharks, undersized swordfish, marlin, sailfish, sea turtles, marine mammals, and many other species. PLL fishing is indiscriminate and was a major cause of the collapse of the swordfish fishery over 20 years ago.

Response: NMFS received many comments expressing concern about excessive levels of bycatch that could occur as a result of issuing the EFP. Given the size, scope, duration, and strict research protocols associated with the research project, NMFS does not anticipate that issuance of the EFP would result in any significant ecological economic impacts. The participating vessels are already fishing in areas that are currently open. The EFP would authorize the same amount of fishing effort compared to the baseline of normal operations that occur in open areas. There would be no overall increase in fishing effort as a result of the project, although fishing would occur in different areas and certain catches and interactions would be expected to increase. None of these increases are expected to adversely affect the stocks or to have significant environmental impacts. The management measures that have been implemented in the PLL fishery since 2001, (including, but not limited to, circle hooks, gear restrictions, careful release equipment and training, individual bluefin tuna quotas, catch quotas, prohibited species, and electronic video monitoring) in combination with the strict research protocols associated with the research project are expected to mitigate any unforeseen ecological impacts such as unexpected bycatch levels. Discards of blue and white marlin are projected to remain largely unchanged. The amount of sailfish catch projected for this research project (226 individual sailfish) is not expected to lead to overfishing or have negative effects on the stock, as the overall TAC recommended by ICCAT (Rec. 16-11) for this stock is 1,030 mt. Similarly, the amount of swordfish projected to be caught is not expected to lead to overfishing as it would remain well within the 2017 adjusted U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota which is expected to be 3,359.4 mt (equivalent to the 2016 adjusted quota). Although discards (dead and alive) of undersized swordfish are projected to increase, this would not be desirable for the vessel captain who would likely change fishing areas and modify fishing techniques to avoid such bycatch. NMFS intends to monitor this project carefully, and will consider the amount of undersized swordfish and other bycatch captured during annual review of the EFP. NMFS has added additional terms and conditions to the EFP, including individual vessel limits, to address dusky shark and other shark bycatch. While a commenter noted concerns about white shark interactions, no interactions with white sharks are expected. If white shark interactions do occur, they are not expected to have ecological impacts as recent research indicates white shark populations are apparently increasing in abundance since the 1990s when a variety of conservation measures were implemented. This also would be considered during annual review of the EFP. Sea turtle bycatch is projected to be reduced and marine mammal bycatch is expected to remain unchanged.

Comment 16: Allowing research fishing in depths of 100 fathoms and less will likely lead to interactions with unwanted and undersized species.

Response: Historically, some fishermen working with the principal investigator have fished a portion of their longline gear in slower water on the west side of the Gulf Stream and a portion of their longline gear in the faster moving waters of the Gulf Stream. This allows their gear to “swing” with the current. The principal investigator has indicated that the slower water along the west side of the Gulf Stream is in proximity to the 100 fathom contour. A purpose of the project is to collect data about PLL catch and bycatch that will help address questions such as the one mentioned in this comment. The answer would not be known until fishery data are collected and analyzed through this research project.

Comment 17: The EFP must include bycatch limits, either individual vessels or fleetwide, for target and non-target finfish species including shark and billfish species. EFP investigators should be required to cease operations if and when any species-specific catch limit is reached.

Response: Bycatch limits are applied as a precautionary measure for certain shark species due to the current stock status of dusky sharks and problems of misidentification with silky and night sharks. Bycatch limits for other species are not necessary because of differences in stock status (i.e., not overfished, no overfishing), low projected catches, or easier identification during monitoring. However, NMFS will closely monitor the catches during the project duration and has the ability to modify the conditions of the EFP, and to end the research project, to address bycatch as warranted.

Comment 18: The EFP must include limits on interactions, takes and catches of species protected under the ESA and/or the MMPA.

Response: Sea turtle interactions are projected to decline and marine mammal interactions are projected to remain the same under this EFP, versus if all fishing effort were in the open area. All existing ESA and MMPA requirements otherwise applicable to PLL fishing are applicable to the fishing activities conducted under this EFP. The PLL fishery is governed by the ITS contained in the 2004 PLL BiOp. Sea turtle interactions (all species) have remained well below the incidental take statement (ITS) established in the 2004 PLL BiOp since its implementation. With regards to marine mammals, the PLL fishery must comply with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan and the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan. These plans include broad-based gear modifications and time/area closures.

Comment 19: What bycatch numbers will be deemed acceptable? The levels of acceptable bycatch must be at or below those achieved by the closures.

Response: Any bycatch derived from within the EFC PLL Closed Area under this EFP would be above the level achieved by the closure because there is currently no PLL fishing activity in the area. NMFS has not determined the level of bycatch that would be considered acceptable, except for dusky sharks which are overfished and may be confused with other shark species. A general benchmark for fish species would be the likely projected annual catch levels analyzed in chapter four of the Final EA. However, these would also need to be assessed on an event by event basis. NMFS, in cooperation with the principal investigator, would determine if the catch of a certain species was unusually large and/or unexpected. The use of electronic logbooks, 100 percent video monitoring, increased observer coverage (40 percent), and communication with the principal investigator would help enable this determination. Then, it would be necessary to assess whether the catch could lead to, or exacerbate, overfishing of the species. Extra precaution would be necessary for currently overfished species including blue and white marlin and certain shark species. Based upon this information, the principal investigator and NMFS would coordinate an appropriate response (e.g., relocation, soak time reduction, temporary or permanent suspension of fishing activities). NMFS will closely monitor catches during the project duration and has the ability to modify the conditions of the EFP, and to end the research project, to address bycatch as warranted.

Comment 20: The issuance of an EFP would have an adverse indirect socio-ecological effect resulting from a reduction in catches of HMS and other species. This adverse indirect impact would affect recreational billfish anglers, recreational tournament operators, and all of those industries which are connected to the recreational fishery (marinas, tackle stores, boat manufacturers, etc.). The money spent on recreational fishing far outweighs any benefit commercial fishing may bring.

Response: Issuance of an EFP is not anticipated to cause or contribute to overfishing of HMS or other species as described in the ecological effects analysis in the Final EA. Recreational fishing for HMS is an important social and economic activity. Mandatory reporting of recreational swordfish and billfish landings became effective in 2001. However, a comparatively small amount of swordfish and billfish were reported as landed from recreational anglers in the state of Florida in 2016. Data indicate that 290 swordfish, 102 sailfish, 2 blue marlin, and 1 white marlin were reported landed. Reporting of releases is optional, but only 1 blue marlin was reportedly released in Florida in 2016. Collecting commercial fisheries data under this EFP is not anticipated to reduce the economic benefits of recreational fishing.

Comment 21: Data derived from the issuance of an EFP could benefit the U.S. PLL fleet. The PLL closures have had profound economic impacts on the fishery.

Response: This research project could benefit the management of all U.S. HMS fisheries by allowing for improved management decision making based upon current and accurate information.

Comment 22: The Draft EA does not provide adequate information and/or a determination whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be made. The Draft EA determined that the proposed activity will have a potential adverse socioeconomic impact due to gear conflicts and a reduction in recreational catch. This adverse impact does not support a FONSI.

Response: A determination that there could be adverse indirect socio-economic impacts to the recreational fishing community does not, by itself, indicate that the overall impact of the research project is significant. NMFS anticipates that these impacts should be partially mitigated because the research area is located far offshore, and well north of where the vast majority of Florida anglers are concentrated. Also, the strict research protocols and limits associated with the research project should mitigate impacts on recreational anglers. Thus, the finding of no significant impact was warranted.

Comment 23: There is an overlap of the areas in the EFP and areas utilized in the royal red shrimp, rock shrimp, golden crab, and golden tilefish fisheries. These fisheries employ trawl, trap, and bottom longline gear respectively that are not compatible with the presence of pelagic longlines. Similarly, PLL gear fished in the same area where recreational and commercial hook-and-line fishing activity is occurring for dolphin or wahoo could create user conflicts, both through potential interaction with the PLL gear as well as a real or perceived localized depletion of these and other pelagic species.

Response: This EFP would authorize a limited number of PLL sets by up to six vessels at one time in the project area. This level of fishing effort is not anticipated to result in a substantial number of interactions with fishing gears in other fisheries. These other fisheries also occur in other areas of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico where PLL fishing occurs, and these other fisheries occurred in the EFC area prior to its closure to PLL gear. In those areas and times, fishermen on the vessels have been able to communicate and work to minimize the potential for gear interactions. NMFS anticipates that this communication and coordination will continue to occur during the EFP project period.

Comment 24: The Draft EA does not include a detailed assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed action on ESA-listed species or marine mammals. Interactions with marine mammals must be carefully considered by the agency to ensure that the project is consistent with the existing Take Reduction Plan for this fishery and the requirements of the MMPA to manage fisheries interactions with marine mammals.

Response: Interactions with listed species and marine mammals were considered by the agency to ensure that the research project is consistent with the existing Take Reduction Plan for this fishery and the requirements of the MMPA. As described in the response to Comment 18, all requirements otherwise applicable to PLL fishing are applicable to fishing activities conducted under this EFP. Although a limited amount of fishing effort under this EFP would occur in areas currently closed to PLL gear, the analysis in the EA shows that sea turtle interactions are projected to decline and marine mammal interactions are projected to remain the same under either Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 of this EFP, with effort relocated to the closed area versus if fishing effort were to occur solely in the open area. The level of fishing activity that would be authorized under this EFP in Preferred Alternative 3 does not represent any increase in fishing effort or methods other than those currently deployed in the U.S. PLL fishery, as analyzed in the 2004 PLL BiOp. Relocating part of the effort to the closed area does not alter that analysis. No additional take or quota use beyond that already authorized and analyzed in previous consultations on the PLL fishery is authorized by this permit. Similarly, the PLL fishery must comply with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan and the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan. These plans include broad-based gear modifications and time/area closures. Additionally, the terms and conditions of the EFP require that any interactions with sea turtles or marine mammals must immediately be reported to the HMS Management Division, and the project terms and conditions may be altered or the project stopped if interactions are at problematic levels in relation to the established limits and protections.

Comment 25: The EFP should include a full discussion of consideration of reinitiating ESA Section 7 Consultation to consider the effect of the proposed EFP on the findings of the 2004 PLL Biological Opinion (BiOp).

Response: Fishing activity authorized under this EFP would be conducted using the same fishing methods and at the same level of fishing effort as currently exists outside of the project area. Furthermore, catches of sea turtles are projected to decrease as a result of this EFP. The 2004 PLL BiOp states that if the fishing type is similar, and the associated fishing effort does not represent a significant increase over the effort levels for the overall fishery considered in this BiOp, then issuance of some EFPs would be expected to fall within the level of effort and impacts considered in the BiOp. For example, issuance of an EFP to an active commercial vessel likely does not add additional effects than would otherwise accrue from the vessel's normal commercial activities. Thus, this research project is consistent with the findings of the 2004 BiOp.

Comment 26: NMFS has not demonstrated its methodology or Region of Influence (ROI) for conducting its cumulative impacts analysis for the proposed action. As the ROI for HMS includes the south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico (recent swordfish tag data from The Billfish Foundation shows juvenile swordfish migrating from the DeSoto Canyon to the Atlantic coast of south Florida), other actions in the ROI such as Department of Defense and offshore oil & gas operations should be addressed as part of the cumulative impacts analysis.

Response: Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative impacts assessment contained in the draft EA for this research project describes all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions for all fish stocks interacting with PLL gear across the range of those stocks (or their region of influence) which, for many, includes the entire Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Although offshore oil and gas operations and Department of Defense activities may affect HMS, the incremental effect of authorizing a limited number of commercial PLL vessels that are currently fishing in open areas to fish and conduct research in two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area, when added to these other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, is not expected to produce adverse significant cumulative impacts.

Comment 27: A reasonable trip limit of no more than 4,000 lbs of dolphin should be applied to the participating vessels while fishing in this area under the EFP. This will prevent the EFP fishery from using an excessive amount of the commercial dolphin quota before the rest of the PLL fleet has an opportunity when the Charleston Bump area opens on May 1st. Further, this will minimize conflicts with the interests of the recreational fishery. Finally, this is consistent with the trip limit currently applied to the commercial dolphin harvest when landings reach 75 percent of the commercial quota. NMFS should also implement a limit of 25,000 pound whole weight on the total amount of dolphin that can be landed with PLL gear from the EFC PLL Closed Area.

Response: Under 50 CFR part 622.274, if pelagic longline gear is on board a vessel, a person aboard such vessel may not fish for or retain a dolphin or wahoo in the EFC PLL Closed Area. An exemption from this regulation has been submitted to the Southeast Regional Office (SERO) of NMFS under their EFP requirements to enable vessels to retain dolphin and wahoo during research operations, subject to otherwise applicable commercial fishing restrictions for the stocks. As recommended by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), a dolphin and wahoo exemption has been approved by the SERO Regional Administrator pending approval of this EFP by the HMS Management Division. Participating vessels would be limited to a 4,000 pound whole weight trip limit for dolphin when any portion of the trip occurs in the EFC PLL Closed Area. Additionally, participating vessels would be limited to the existing 500-pound trip limit for wahoo specified at 50 CFR 622.278(a)(1)(i). All other commercial dolphin and wahoo regulations, including the requirement to be issued a commercial dolphin-wahoo permit, would also apply. The environmental effects of this exemption have been analyzed in the Final EA. NMFS has determined that issuance of the EFP should not affect dolphin or wahoo in any way not already considered and analyzed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic and it would not result in exceeding the annual catch limits for those species. Thus, the 25,000 pound whole weight total dolphin landing limit requested by the commenter is determined to not be necessary at this time.

Comment 28: If the Charleston Bump area continues to be closed from February 1st to April 30th, there should be no special access during that same time frame given to the area immediately south of the 31 °N. Lat. line where all the HMS are migrating from unless the Charleston Bump was reopened at the same time.

Response: The purpose of this research project is to evaluate PLL catches and catch rates of target and non-target species within a portion of the EFC PLL Closed Area on a year-round basis to evaluate the effectiveness of existing area closures at meeting current conservation and management goals. Therefore, prohibiting research activities in the area for three months would prevent the collection of important seasonal catch rate information that could potentially be used to address this issue in the future.

Comment 29: The Draft EA notes that essential fish habitat (EFH) for HMS (including species targeted by PLL gear) exists within the EFC PLL Closed Area, but no EFH Assessment has been completed for the proposed action. NMFS must conduct an EFH Assessment in order to determine if the proposed action would adversely affect EFH. Both alternatives would co-occur within the Stetson Miami Terrace coral habitat area of particular concern (CHAPC) and Preferred Alternative 3 would also overlap with the Oculina Bank CHAPC. If PLL gear fished in these areas unintentionally comes into contact with the bottom, the gear may damage this fragile coral habitat. The Oculina Bank and Stetson Miami Terrance are considered EFH-HAPC.

Response: An EFH assessment has been conducted for the proposed and final actions. As stated in the EFH assessment in the Draft and Final EA, issuance of the EFP is not anticipated to have an impact on EFH. The only gear to be deployed is PLL gear which has minimal or no impact on EFH for HMS or other species. PLL gear is typically fished in the water column where it does not come into contact with the benthic substrate. Thus, no impacts to benthic habitat or other EFH are anticipated.

Comment 30: NMFS should develop a hook and line survey to collect important population dynamics information from recreational and for-hire anglers.

Response: NMFS appreciates this comment; however it is outside the scope of alternatives addressed in the Draft EA. NMFS notes that the current Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) collects some of this information.

Comment 31: NMFS should conduct research into shorter sets and soak-times for longlines and how they might enhance survival of incidentally-caught fish and undersize target fish.

Response: NMFS appreciates this comment and agrees that research investigating shorter mainline lengths, soak times, and gear retrieval techniques would be valuable. In a document entitled “Atlantic HMS Management Based Research Needs and Priorities” (2014), examining the feasibility of gear alternatives in Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean to reduce bycatch while maintaining target catch was identified as a high priority.

The research conducted within the EFC PLL Closed Area and in the open area would be carried out by no more than six PLL vessels at any one time. An additional six “backup” vessels could be used to conduct research as replacements if any mechanical or technical issues arise on the other six vessels. The research project would be authorized for 12 months and, pending annual analysis review for any changed environmental conditions or impacts and of catches and catch rates of all species, as well as individual vessel performance, may be re-authorized for two additional 12-month periods. A maximum of 720 sets per year (12 months) would be authorized to occur between the six vessels, and sets would be distributed evenly between two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area and the open area. Each set would consist of a maximum of 600 16/0 or larger circle hooks. During the research project, 40 percent of sets occurring in both portions of the EFC PLL Closed Area and in the open area would be observed by scientific research staff or NMFS-approved observers.

The commercial vessels that would be participating in this EFP project are otherwise authorized to fish and, absent this EFP, would be conducting normal PLL fishing operations in open areas consistent with their past practices. NMFS conducted an analysis that compared projected catches if the vessels were to continue fishing only in open areas (i.e., all effort in open areas) versus projected catches from fishing operations under the EFP (i.e., 2/3 effort in closed areas and 1/3 effort in the open area). The analysis indicated that fishing operations under the EFP could result in comparatively higher interactions with dusky, silky, and night sharks, whether fishing occurred at the level requested by the applicant or at the reduced level commensurate with past fishing activity. Therefore, many of the terms and conditions in the EFP are structured to limit interactions with and maximize the survival of these shark species, collect data on shark species identification, collect data on PLL soak times to reduce bycatch mortality, such as dusky sharks, and to increase the Agency's understanding of these data poor stocks to improve future management of these species. The terms and conditions include:

• NMFS would review 100 percent of electronic monitoring data for 100 percent of sets occurring in both portions of the EFC PLL Closed Area and in the open area.

• After three dusky sharks are caught dead at haulback by a vessel participating in the EFP, that vessel or its replacement vessel would be required to reduce the soak time of the gear to no longer than 10 hours when conducting fishing operations under the EFP. If, after reducing the soak time to no longer than 10 hours, an additional three dusky sharks are caught dead at haulback, then that vessel or its replacement vessel would no longer be authorized to fish in the EFC PLL Closed Area under this EFP, if issued, for the remainder of the 12-month project period, unless otherwise permitted by NMFS.

• All live sharks caught but not being retained must be safely sampled (e.g., fin clip) and photographed without removing the shark from the water. All fin clips and photographs would be sent to the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) for identification purposes.

• All sharks that are dead at haulback, including prohibited species, and all sharks being retained for sale must be biologically sampled (i.e., vertebra and reproductive organs removed) to facilitate species identification and collection of life history information. All biological samples would be sent to an address specified by the SEFSC.

• Sets inside and outside of the two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area would be equipped with hook timers, in accordance with protocols established by NMFS, to determine when animals were captured and when mortality occurs. This will help determine appropriate PLL soak time to minimize dusky and other shark mortality.

• To assist in current research efforts on shortfin mako sharks, observers are requested to place a specified number of pop-up satellite archival tags (PSATS) on shortfin mako sharks that are released alive.

• NMFS will closely monitor the catches during the project duration and has the ability to modify the conditions of the EFP, and end the research project, to address bycatch as warranted.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The applicant proposes to continue long-term studies of the Erebus Bay, Antarctica, Weddell seal population to evaluate how temporal variation in the marine environment affects individual life histories and the population dynamics of long-lived mammal. Research involves the annual capture of up to 675 Weddell seal pups at 1-4 days after birth, flipper tagging, and release. A maximum of 150 of these pups would also receive a temperature recording flipper tag, be physically weighed, and have a skin biopsy taken for genetics when initially tagged. These pups would be re-captured again at 20 days of age to be weighed, and again at weaning for weighing and to remove the temperature tags. The applicant also proposes to capture up to 285 adults Weddell seals using the head-bagging technique to flipper tag previously untagged seals or replace lost or damaged tags of previously tagged individuals. An additional 100 previously tagged adult Weddell seals would be captured to obtain a skin biopsy for genetics. Up to 75 adult female Weddell seals would be photographed on the 3 occasions when their pup is weighed to obtained an estimate of the mother's mass through photogrammetry. An additional 15 females would be physically weighed when their pups were initially tagged and weighed. The applicant proposes to conduct up to eight mark-resight surveys, approaching animals to read their flipper tags. The applicant also requests incidental take of crabeater seals (Lobodon carcinophagus) and leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) that may be unintentionally harassed. This permit would be valid for five years.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion during the assessment webinar I are as follows:

1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.

2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

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

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 2 business days prior to each workshop.

Section 204(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and at the request and in consultation with the Council, to negotiate and enter into a Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement (PIAFA). A PIAFA would allow foreign fishing within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to a Pacific Insular Area other than American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands, that is, in the EEZ around the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA). The PRIA are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Island, Wake Island, and Palmyra Atoll. Before entering into a PIAFA for the PRIA, the Council must develop and submit to the Secretary a 3-year MCP that details the uses for funds collected by the Secretary under the PIAFA. NMFS is the designee of the Secretary for MCP review and approval.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires any payments received under a PIAFA, and any funds or contributions received in support of conservation and management objectives for the PRIA MCP, to be deposited into the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund (Fund) for use by the Council. Additionally, amounts received by the Secretary attributable to fines and penalties imposed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for violations by foreign vessels occurring in the EEZ off the PRIA are deposited into the Fund for use by the Council. Section 204(e)(7)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act also authorizes the Council to use the Fund to meet conservation and management objectives in the State of Hawaii, if funds remain after implementing the PRIA MCP.

An MCP must be consistent with the Council's fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs), identify conservation and management objectives (including criteria for determining when such objectives have been met), and prioritize planned marine conservation projects. Although no foreign fishing in the PRIA is being considered at this time, the Council reviewed and approved the draft MCP for PRIA in June 2017 and sent the MCP to NMFS for review on July 7, 2017.

The PRIA MCP contains five conservation and management objectives, consistent with the PRIA and Pelagic FEPs:

1. Support quality research and monitoring to obtain the most complete scientific information available to assess and manage fisheries within an ecosystem approach.

2. Conduct education and outreach to foster good stewardship principles and broad and direct public participation in the Council's decision-making process.

3. Promote regional cooperation to manage domestic and international fisheries.

4. Encourage development of technologies and methods to achieve the most effective level of monitoring, control, and surveillance, and to ensure safety at sea.

5. Support Western Pacific community demonstration projects and Western Pacific Community Development Program to promote participation and access to fisheries for eligible communities.

In addition, the PRIA MCP contains seven conservation and management objectives, consistent with the Hawaii FEP:

1. Support quality research and monitoring to obtain the most complete scientific information available to assess and manage fisheries within an ecosystem approach.

2. Promote an ecosystem approach to fisheries management including reducing bycatch in fisheries, minimizing impacts on marine habitats and protected species, and addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation.

3. Conduct education and outreach to foster good stewardship principles and broad and direct public participation in the Council's decision-making process.

4. Recognize the importance of island cultures and traditional fishing practices in managing fishery resources and foster opportunities for participation.

5. Promote responsible domestic fisheries development to provided long-term economic growth and stability by reducing foreign imports and increasing local seafood production.

6. Promote regional cooperation and capacity-building to manage domestic and international fisheries.

7. Encourage development of technologies and methods to achieve the most effective level of monitoring, control, and surveillance, and to ensure safety at sea.

Please refer to the MCP for planned projects and activities designed to meet each conservation and management objective, for the evaluative criteria, and for the priority rankings.

This notice announces that NMFS has reviewed the MCP for the PRIA, and has determined that it satisfies the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Accordingly, NMFS has approved the MCP for the 3-year period from August 4, 2017, through August 3, 2020. This MCP supersedes the MCP previously approved for the period August 4, 2014, through August 3, 2017 (79 FR 44753, August 1, 2014).

I. Abstract

In the current employment environment, information technology professionals and engineering graduates are in great demand. The USPTO is in direct competition with private industry for the same caliber of candidates with the requisite knowledge and skills to perform patent examination work. The use of automated online systems during recruitment allows the USPTO to remain competitive, meet hiring goals, and fulfill the agency's Congressional commitment to reduce the pendency rate for the examination of patent applications.

The USPTO uses the Monster Hiring Management (MHM) system to rapidly review applications for employment of entry-level patent examiners. Using MHM saves time by eliminating paper applications; reducing by several weeks the time Office of Human Resources staff need to spend processing and reviewing applications. Given the time sensitive hiring needs of the Patent Examining Corps, the MHM system provides increased speed and accuracy during the employment process.

The MHM online application collects supplemental information to an candidate's USAjobs application. This information assists the Human Resource Specialists and hiring managers in determining whether an applicant possesses the basic qualification requirements for the patent examiner position. From the information collected, the MHM system creates an electronic real-time candidate inventory on applicants' expertise and technical knowledge, which allows the USPTO to instantaneously review applications from multiple potential applicants.

The use of the MHM online application fully complies with 5 U.S.C. 2301, which requires adequate public notice to assure open competition by guaranteeing that necessary employment information will be accessible and available to the public on inquiry. It is also fully compliant with Section 508 (29 U.S.C. 794(d)), which requires agencies to provide disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others.

With the use of MHM, the applicant's information is collected electronically from the application. The USAJobs.gov Web site provides the online job announcement that links the applicant to the application and the MHM system. The application is completed online and then transmitted to the USPTO via the Internet.

OMB Control Number: 0651-0042.

IC Instruments and Forms: There are no forms associated with this collection.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,660 responses per year.

Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that the employment application takes approximately 30 minutes (0.50 hours) to complete (See Table 1 below). This includes the time to gather the necessary information, respond to the MHM prompts, and submit the completed request to the USPTO.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 5,330 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hourly) Cost Burden: $239,690. The USPTO expects that engineers and scientists will complete these applications. The professional hourly rate for these respondents is estimated at an hourly rate of $44.97. This rate is the median hourly wage in May 2016 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program estimates for engineers ($43.75; OES 17-2000) and scientists ($46.19; OES 19-2099). Using this hourly rate, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost burden for this collection is $239,690.00 per year.

Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $0.00. There are no filing fees or start-up, maintenance, record keeping, or postage costs associated with this information collection.

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

Comments are invited on:

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

(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

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

Additions

On 5/26/2017 (82 FR 24308-24309) and 6/9/2017 (82 FR 26780), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

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

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

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

Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

On 6/30/2017 (82 FR 29852), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletion from the Procurement List.

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

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

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

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to provide the service to the Government.

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

Accordingly, the following service is deleted from the Procurement List:

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

Title of Collection: Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program: Lender's Application for Insurance Claim Form and Request for Collection Assistance Form.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0127.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 4,613.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 875.

Abstract: The HEAL Lender's application for Insurance Claim and the request for Collection Assistance forms are used in the administration of the Health Education Assistant Loan (HEAL) program. The HEAL program provided federally insured loans to students in certain health professions disciplines, and these forms are used in the administration of the HEAL program. The Lender's Application for Insurance Claim is used by the lending institution to request payment of a claim by the Federal Government. The Request for Collection Assistance form is used by the lender to request proclaims assistance from the Department. Section 525 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, transferred the collection of the Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) program loans from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the U.S. Department of Education (ED).

No applications received in response to the NIA were funded because the applicants did not adequately address the selection criteria for the competition. Therefore, we are reopening the competition to allow applicants to submit or resubmit applications that meet the requirements in the NIA, in order to ensure that State Part C and Part B, section 619 programs receive the technical assistance necessary to implement high-quality Comprehensive Systems of Personnel Development.

We have eliminated the formatting and page-limit requirements specified in the NIA. Further, the specification in the NIA that the Secretary will not consider budgets above the maximum award amount is no longer applicable. However, we will only fund a successful application up to $2,000,000 for any single budget period of 12 months.

Applicants that have already submitted applications under the FY 2017 competition are encouraged to review their applications and determine whether they have met all eligibility requirements and adequately addressed the selection criteria in the NIA and the application package, which is available at www.grants.gov.

Applications that were previously deemed ineligible for review must be resubmitted to be considered for review. If a new application is not submitted by an applicant whose application was reviewed, the Department will use the application that was submitted before 4:30:00 p.m., Washington DC time, on June 5, 2017, 4:30:00 p.m.

Finally, this competition is subject to intergovernmental review as set forth in Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make an award by the end of FY 2017.

Title: FERC-717, Open Access Same-Time information System and Standards for Business Practices & Communication Protocols.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0173.

Type of Request: Three-year approval of the FERC-717 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: The Commission directs all public utilities that own, control or operate facilities for transmitting energy in interstate commerce to provide certain types of information regarding their transmission operations on an Open Access Same-time Information System (OASIS). The Commission does not believe that open-access nondiscriminatory transmission services can be completely realized until it removes real-world obstacles that prevent transmission customers from competing effectively with the Transmission Provider. One of the obstacles is unequal access to transmission information. The Commission believes that transmission customers must have simultaneous access to the same information available to the Transmission Provider if truly nondiscriminatory transmission services are to be a reality.

The Commission also established Standards of Conduct requiring that personnel engaged in transmission system operations function independently from personnel engaged in marketing functions. The Standards of Conduct were designed to prevent employees of a public utility (or any of its affiliates) engaged in marketing functions from preferential access to OASIS-related information or from engaging in unduly discriminatory business practices. Companies were required to separate their transmission operations/reliability functions from their marketing/merchant functions and prevent system operators from providing merchant employees and employees of affiliates with transmission-related information not available to all customers at the same time through public posting on the OASIS.

Type of Respondents: Transmission Owners and Transmission Operators.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 1 The Commission estimates a reduction in the annual public reporting burden for the FERC-717. The numbers comport two separate entities: Transmission Owners and Transmission Operators. The respondent estimate provide corresponds to 170 Transmission Operators. The rational is that many Transmission Owners have elected to turn over operational control of their collective transmission systems to Transmission Operators, including RTOs/IS0s (as authorized in 18 CFR 37.5). These Transmission Operators offer OASIS access to the collective systems facilitating a single OASIS transmission request serving multiple transmission systems. As a result of these efficiency gains, the lower respondent count is appropriate. For completeness, we ascribe the reduction in Transmission Owners to mergers and acquisitions occurring during the time periods examined.

Many Transmission Owners have turned over operational control of their collective transmission systems to Transmission Operators, including RTOs/ISOs. As a result of the efficiency gains, and an overestimate of the respondents in our past request, we are submitting a more accurate number of respondents. The changes in business practice standards from version to version requires a different number of hours each time a respondent submits there response. The estimate below reflects the work associated with the most recent version of the standards:

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.

Entities potentially affected by this action are: The EPA; territorial, and tribal programs; and the regulated community and citizens within the state of Idaho. This table is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it provides a guide for readers regarding entities that this action is likely to regulate.

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The State of Idaho submitted a complete description of their IPDES program and associated documents to the EPA. In accordance with CWA section 402(b), 33 U.S.C. 1342(b), and NPDES regulations at 40 CFR part 123, the EPA shall approve a submitted program unless adequate authority does not exist as required by the CWA.

CWA section 402 established the NPDES permitting program and gives the EPA authority to approve state NPDES programs. 33 U.S.C. 1342(b).

State Permit Program Approval: Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1342, created the NPDES program under which the EPA may issue permits authorizing the point source discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States under conditions required by the Act. The CWA Section 402(b), 33 U.S.C. 1342(b), provides that the EPA shall approve a State to administer its own permit program, upon the Governor's request, provided the State has appropriate legal authority and a program sufficient to meet the Act's requirements. The regulatory requirements for state program approval are set forth in 40 CFR part 123 (https://www.ecfr.gov/), and subpart B provides the requirements of state program submissions, which IDEQ refers to as the IPDES program application.

Decision Process: Pursuant to 40 CFR 123.21 and 123.61(b), the EPA must approve or disapprove the submitted IPDES program, which has been determined to be complete, within 90 days of receipt, unless this review period is extended by mutual agreement between the EPA and the State. The State must show, among other things that it has the authority to issue permits which comply with the Act, authority to impose civil and criminal penalties for permit violations, and authority to ensure that the public is given notice and an opportunity for a hearing on each proposed permit. After the close of the public comment period and completion of the required consultations, the Regional Administrator for EPA Region 10 will make a decision to approve or disapprove the IPDES program based on the requirements of section 402 of the CWA and 40 CFR part 123. If the Regional Administrator approves the IPDES program, the Regional Administrator will so notify the State and sign the proposed Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and IDEQ (MOA). Notice would be published in the Federal Register and, as of the date of program approval, the EPA would suspend issuance of NPDES permits in Idaho in accordance with the State's approved schedule to transfer NPDES program authority in accordance with the phased implementation plan. If the Regional Administrator disapproves the IPDES program, IDEQ will be notified of the reasons for disapproval and of any revisions or modifications to the program that are necessary to obtain approval. The EPA will not make a final decision on IPDES program approval until after: (1) Considering all public comments provided during the public comment period and from the public hearings, and preparing a responsiveness summary and (2) completion of government to government tribal consultations, as requested, with federally recognized tribes in Idaho.

Informational Meetings: Informational meetings will include a technical overview of both the federal and state programs and provide an opportunity for question and answer. IDEQ will participate with EPA during these meetings. Questions and answers following the informational meeting will not be entered into the official record. Comments for the official record must be made in accordance with the public hearings procedures and/or submitted as written comments before the end of the comment period.

Public Hearing Procedures. The public hearings will be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 124.12 and will provide interested parties with the opportunity to give written and/or oral testimony into the official record. The following procedures will be used at the public hearings. (1) The Presiding Officer shall conduct the hearing in a manner which will allow all interested persons wishing to make oral statements an opportunity to do so; however, the Presiding Officer may inform attendees of any time limitations during the opening statement of the hearing. (2) Any person may submit written statements or documents for the hearing record. (3) The transcript taken at the hearing, together with copies of all submitted statements and documents, shall become a part of the record submitted to the Regional Administrator. (4) The hearing record shall be left open until the deadline for receipt of comments specified at the beginning of this Notice to allow any person time to submit additional written statements or to present views or evidence tending to rebut testimony presented at the public hearing. (5) Hearing statements may be oral or written. Written copies of oral statements are urged for accuracy of the record and for use of the Hearing Panel and other interested persons. Persons wishing to make oral testimony supporting their written comments are encouraged to give a summary of their points rather than reading lengthy written comments verbatim into the record. All comments received by the EPA in accordance with the instructions for `Providing Comments' by the ending date of the comment period and/or presented at the public hearing, will be considered by the EPA before final IPDES program approval.

IPDES Program Application Summary: By letter dated, and received by the EPA on August 31, 2016, the Governor of Idaho submitted the IPDES program application for program approval. The application consisted of five main components required under 40 CFR 123.21: (1) A letter from the governor requesting approval of the state's application, (2) a program description that describes how the state will issue IPDES permits, ensure compliance with permit conditions, conduct enforcement, as well as fund and manage the program including programmatic information and data, (3) a statement from the Attorney General's office certifying that the state's laws and regulations provide sufficient authority to the state to implement the discharge, pretreatment, and biosolids components of the NPDES program, (4) a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the state and EPA which establishes, in part, timeframes for a phased approach for the state to assume authority, (5) copies of all applicable statutes and regulations including those that govern the state administrative procedures, which the state adopted to ensure the necessary authority for implementing the IPDES program, including Idaho House Bill 406 directing IDEQ to pursue permitting authority. IDEQ submitted their Continuing Planning Process (CPP) as required under 40 CFR 130.5 for program approval. Appendices to the Program Description include other IPDES program documents including guidance, forms and templates that IDEQ will use to implement their program.

The EPA deemed the application complete on September 30, 2016, in a letter that also identified initial issues to be addressed before program approval. In accordance with 40 CFR 123.21(d), IDEQ requested to extend the statutory review period for the application until June 30, 2018. The EPA and IDEQ will use the period of time until program approval to address issues, complete the public process, develop the IPDES program and build capacity for both permitting and enforcement functions.

IPDES Program Summary: As required under section 402(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1342(b), and 40 CFR 123.22, the IPDES program description specifies how IDEQ will administer the NPDES program. IDEQ will issue IPDES permits under their jurisdiction; conduct compliance and enforcement activities; gather and maintain NPDES records and report to the EPA; and oversee the regulated activities of all IPDES-permitted facilities. The EPA will retain the authority to issue NPDES permits for facilities located on tribal lands and/or discharging to tribal waters. The scope of IDEQ permitting authority includes individual and general permits for discharges to waters of the United States from facilities or activities, including industrial (e.g., commercial, mining, oil and gas, and silviculture discharges; animal feeding operations; and aquatic animal production facilities) and municipal wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., publicly and privately owned treatment works); discharges to waters of the United States from federal facilities; storm water discharges, including municipal storm sewer systems (combined and separate); construction and industrial storm water general permits; and individual permits for storm water discharges; sewage sludge (biosolids) under 40 CFR part 503 and the pretreatment program under 40 CFR part 403. IDEQ's program will not include permitting of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a non-military, non-recreational vessel operating in a capacity as a means of transportation; the EPA will continue to issue permits under CWA section 402 to regulate such discharges from non-military, non-recreational vessels greater than 79 feet in length and all ballast water discharges.

IDEQ will assume permitting and compliance authority for the NPDES program in four phases. The EPA will retain full permitting and compliance authority over facilities until that authority is transferred to IDEQ in accordance with the following schedule:

Phase I—Individual Municipal Permits and Pretreatment upon gaining program authority (anticipated July 1, 2018).

Phase II—Individual Industrial Permits, one year after program authorization (anticipated July 1, 2019).

Phase III—General Permits (Aquaculture, Pesticide, CAFO, Suction Dredge, Remediation), two years after program authorization (anticipated July 1, 2020).

Phase IV—Federal Facilities, General and Individual Stormwater Permits and Biosolids, three years after program authorization (anticipated July 1, 2021).

The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Consumers qualify for Lifeline through proof of income or participation in a qualifying program, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit. In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, the Commission ordered USAC to create a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (“National Verifier”), including the National Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED), that would match data about Lifeline applicants and subscribers with other data sources to verify the eligibility of an applicant or subscriber. The Commission found that the National Verifier would reduce compliance costs for Lifeline service providers, improve service for Lifeline subscribers, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.

The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Consumers qualify for Lifeline through proof of income or participation in a qualifying program, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit. In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, the Commission ordered USAC to create a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (“National Verifier”), including the National Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED), that would match data about Lifeline applicants and subscribers with other data sources to verify the eligibility of an applicant or subscriber. The Commission found that the National Verifier would reduce compliance costs for Lifeline service providers, improve service for Lifeline subscribers, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0812.

Title: Regulatory Fee True-Up, Waiver or Exemption.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents and Responses: 19,674 respondents and 19,774 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hour-1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Annual, on occasion and one-time reporting requirements; recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 158 and 47 U.S.C. 159, Sections 4(i), 4(j) 8,9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 10,016 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Licensees or regulatees concerned about disclosure of sensitive information in any submissions to the Commission may request confidential treatment pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) after this 60-day comment period in order to obtain the full three-year clearance from them.

This information collection consolidates and revises the currently approved information collection requirements under OMB Control Numbers 3060-0655 and 3060-1064 into 3060-0812.

The Commission provides broadcast licensees and commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) licensees with a “true-up” opportunity to update or otherwise correct their assessed fee amounts well before the actual due date for payment of regulatory fees. Providing a “true-up” opportunity is necessary because the data sources that are used to generate the fee assessments are subject to change at time of transfer or assignment of the license. The “true-up” is also an opportunity for regulatees to correct inaccuracies.

Per 47 CFR 1.1119 and 1.1166, the FCC may, upon a properly submitted written request, waive or defer collection of an application fee or waive, reduce, or defer payment of a regulatory fee in a specific instance for good cause shown where such action would promote the public interest. When submitting the request, no specific form is required.

FCC requires that when licensees or regulates request exemption from regulatory fees based on their non-profit status, they must file a one-time documentation sufficient to establish their non-profit status. The documentation may take the form of an IRS Determination Letter, a state charter indicating non-profit status, proof of church affiliation indicating tax exempt status, etc.

Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposal

The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:

a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving final approval.

Report title: Notifications Related to Community Development and Public Welfare Investments of State Member Banks.

Agency form number: FR H-6.

OMB control number: 7100-0278.

Frequency: Event-generated.

Respondents: State member banks.

Estimated number of respondents: Post Notification, 20; Application (Prior Approval), 71; and Extension of divestiture period, 1.

Estimated average hours per response: Post Notification, 2 hours; Application (Prior Approval) 5 hours; and Extension of divestiture period, 5 hours.

Estimated annual burden hours: Post Notification, 40 hours; Application (Prior Approval) 355 hours; and Extension of divestiture period, 5 hours.

General Description of Report: Regulation H requires state member banks planning to make community development or public welfare investments to comply with the Regulation H notification requirements: (1) If the investment does not require prior Board approval, a written notice must be sent to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank; (2) if certain criteria are not met, and the investment requires prior Board approval, a request for approval must be sent to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank; and, (3) if the Board orders divestiture, but the bank cannot divest within the established time limit, a request or requests for extension of the divestiture period must be submitted to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank.

Legal authorization and confidentiality: The Board's Legal Division has determined that the public welfare investment notice, request for approval, and request for extension of the divestiture period are authorized by the Federal Reserve Act, (12 U.S.C. 338a), and by the Board's Regulation H, (12 CFR 208.22). The obligation of state member banks to make public welfare investments under both the Reserve Bank post-notice and the Board's prior approval procedure is mandatory. The request for extension of the divestiture period is required to obtain a benefit. Individual respondent data generally are not regarded as confidential. However, a bank that submits confidential proprietary information may request confidential treatment of that information pursuant to section (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Such a determination would be made on a case-by-case basis in response to a specific request for disclosure. If examination ratings are included in a submission, those will be considered confidential under exemption 8 of the FOIA, (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)).

Consultation outside the agency: Given that most community development entities obtain funding from a variety of local and regional financial institutions, Board staff consults with other agencies' staff to discuss applications relating to such investments, as appropriate.

GSA intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed Master Plan to support the FDA Headquarters consolidation at the Federal Research Center (FRC) at White Oak, located in Silver Spring, Maryland.

In 1997, GSA completed an EIS that analyzed the impacts from the consolidation of 5,975 FDA employees at the FRC. In 2005, GSA completed a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) that analyzed the impacts of increasing the number of employees from 5,947 to 7,720 and the impacts of adding a new eastern access entrance point into the FRC. In 2009, GSA completed its second SEIS that analyzed the impacts of increasing the number of employees (from 7,720 to 8,889) needed to conduct the complex and comprehensive reviews mandated by new legislation. To accommodate future growth and further consolidate FDA operations, GSA is preparing an EIS to assess the impacts of an employee population increase, of up to an approximately 18,000 employees, over a period of 15 years.

The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a Master Plan for the FDA Campus at FRC to accommodate the projected growth. The need for the proposed action is to continue to support the FDA Headquarters consolidation at FRC, and provide the necessary office and laboratory space, in order to conduct the complex and comprehensive reviews mandated by Congress.

GSA will analyze a range of alternatives (including the no action alternative) for the proposed Master Plan of the FDA Headquarters, to increase the campus population by up to an approximately 18,000 employees over 15 years. As part of the EIS, GSA will study the impacts of each alternative on the human environment.

In accordance with NEPA, a scoping process will be conducted to aid in determining the alternatives to be considered and the scope of issues to be addressed, as well as for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed Master Plan. Scoping will be accomplished through a public scoping meeting, direct mail correspondence to potentially interested persons, agencies, and organizations, and meetings with agencies having an interest in the Master Plan. It is important that Federal, regional, State, and local agencies, and interested individuals take this opportunity to identify environmental concerns that should be addressed during the preparation of the Draft EIS.

A public scoping meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., EDT. The meeting will be an informal open house along with a brief presentation, where visitors may come, receive information, and give comments. GSA is publishing notices in the Washington Post, Montgomery County Sentinel, and Prince George's Sentinel announcing the meeting.

Agencies and the public are encouraged to provide written comments on the scoping issues in addition to, or in lieu of, giving their comments at the public scoping meeting. Written comments regarding the environmental analysis for the proposed Master Plan must be postmarked between Monday, August 21, 2017, and Monday, September 25, 2017, and sent to the following address: General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Office of Planning and Design Quality, Attention: Paul Gyamfi, 301 7th Street SW., Room 4004, Washington, DC 20407. Email: [email protected] using the subject line: FDA White Oak Master Plan Comment.

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: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Disclosure of State Rating Requirements; Use: The final rule “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Health Insurance Market Rules; Rate Review” implements sections 2701, 2702, and 2703 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), as added and amended by the Affordable Care Act, and sections 1302(e) and 1312(c) of the Affordable Care Act. The rule directs that states submit to CMS certain information about state rating and risk pooling requirements for their individual, small group, and large group markets, as applicable. Specifically, states will inform CMS of age rating ratios that are narrower than 3:1 for adults; tobacco use rating ratios that are narrower than 1.5:1; a state-established uniform age curve; geographic rating areas; whether premiums in the small and large group market are required to be based on average enrollee amounts (also known as composite premiums); and, in states that do not permit any rating variation based on age or tobacco use, uniform family tier structures and corresponding multipliers. In addition, states that elect to merge their individual and small group market risk pools into a combined pool will notify CMS of such election. This information will allow CMS to determine whether state-specific rules apply or Federal default rules apply. It will also support the accuracy of the Federal risk adjustment methodology. Form Number: CMS-10454 (OMB control number: 0938-1258); Frequency: On Occasion; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments, Private Sector; Number of Respondents: 47; Total Annual Responses: 47; Total Annual Hours: 2,239. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Russell Tipps at 301-492-4371.)

I. Background

The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) is governed by the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a).

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) signed the charter establishing the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education 1 (the predecessor to the APOE) on January 21, 1999 (64 FR 7899, February 17, 1999) to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the effective implementation of national Medicare education programs, including with respect to the Medicare+Choice (M+C) program added by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) expanded the existing health plan options and benefits available under the M+C program and renamed it the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. We have had substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options available and better tools to evaluate these options. The successful MA program implementation required CMS to consider the views and policy input from a variety of private sector constituents and to develop a broad range of public-private partnerships.

In addition, Title I of the MMA authorized the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS (by delegation) to establish the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit allows beneficiaries to obtain qualified prescription drug coverage. In order to effectively administer the MA program and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we have substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options and benefits available, and to develop better tools to evaluate these plans and benefits.

The Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152) expanded the availability of other options for health care coverage and enacted a number of changes to Medicare as well as to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Qualified individuals and qualified employers are now able to purchase private health insurance coverage through a competitive marketplace, called an Affordable Insurance Exchange (also called Health Insurance MarketplaceSM,2 or MarketplaceSM). In order to effectively implement and administer these changes, we must provide information to consumers, providers, and other stakeholders through education and outreach programs regarding how existing programs will change and the expanded range of health coverage options available, including private health insurance coverage through the MarketplaceSM. The APOE allows us to consider a broad range of views and information from interested audiences in connection with this effort and to identify opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of education strategies concerning the Affordable Care Act.

The scope of this panel also includes advising on issues pertaining to the education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

On January 21, 2011, the Panel's charter was renewed and the Panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education. The Panel's charter was most recently renewed on January 19, 2017, and will terminate on January 19, 2019 unless renewed by appropriate action.

Under the current charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the Administrator on optimal strategies for the following:

• Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or coverage available through the Health Insurance MarketplaceSM and other CMS programs.

• Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP consumers, issuers, providers, and stakeholders, through education and outreach programs, on issues regarding these programs, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, and stakeholders.

• Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP education programs and other CMS programs as designated.

• Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.

• Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.

• Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.

The current members of the Panel are: Kellan Baker, Associate Director, Center for American Progress; Robert Blancato, President, Matz, Blancato & Associates; Dale Blasier, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics, Arkansas Children's Hospital; Deborah Britt, Executive Director of Community & Public Relations, Piedmont Fayette Hospital; Deena Chisolm, Associate Professor of Pediatrics & Public Health, The Ohio State University, Nationwide Children's Hospital; Josephine DeLeon, Director, Anti-Poverty Initiatives, Catholic Charities of California; Robert Espinoza, Vice President of Policy, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute; Louise Scherer Knight, Director, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Roanne Osborne-Gaskin, M.D., Senior Medical Director, MDWise, Inc.; Cathy Phan, Outreach and Education Coordinator, Asian American Health Coalition DBA HOPE Clinic; Kamilah Pickett, Litigation Support, Independent Contractor; Brendan Riley, Outreach and Enrollment Coordinator, NC Community Health Center Association; Alvia Siddiqi, Medicaid Managed Care Community Network (MCCN) Medical Director, Advocate Physician Partners, Carla Smith, Executive Vice President, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS); Tobin Van Ostern, Vice President and Co-Founder, Young Invincibles Advisors; and Paula Villescaz, Senior Consultant, Assembly Health Committee, California State Legislature.

In accordance with section 10(a) of the FACA, this notice announces a meeting of the APOE. The agenda for the September 13, 2017 meeting will include the following:

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

I. Non-watershed-based studies:

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

I. Non-watershed-based studies:

The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

We have received an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The application addresses take of the federally endangered Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) likely to occur incidental to the construction and maintenance of a single-family residence and associated infrastructure/landscaping. The requested permit term is 10 years, and the permit would be subject to renewal. We invite comments from the public on the application package. Issuance of an ITP pursuant to this HCP has been determined to be eligible for a categorical exclusion under NEPA.

The Morro shoulderband snail was listed as endangered on December 15, 1994 (59 FR 64613). Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) prohibit the take of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Under the Act, “take” is defined to include the following activities: “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we may issue permits to authorize take of listed species if it is incidental to other lawful activities and not the purpose of carrying out that activity. The Code of Federal Regulations provides those regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22. Issuance of an incidental take permit must not jeopardize the existence of any federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species.

The project involves the construction and maintenance of a single-family residence and associated infrastructure/landscaping on an existing, legal parcel in the Cabrillo Estates subdivision of Los Osos, County of San Luis Obispo, California. The HCP provides the support necessary for the Service to issue an ITP that would authorize take, in this instance, of the Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana). The County of San Luis Obispo requires demonstration that the property owner is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), as part of their permitting requirements.

The draft HCP contains two alternatives to the proposed action: “No Action” and “Project Redesign.” Under the “No Action” alternative, an ITP for the Rothman single-family residence would not be issued. The Rothman single-family residence could not legally be built, and the mitigation fee would not be available to contribute to recovery actions for Morro shoulderband snails. Since the property is privately owned, there are ongoing economic considerations (e.g., payment of property taxes) associated with continued ownership of a property and its intended use. The sale of the property for purposes (e.g., as a conservation easement) other than the identified activity is not economically feasible. For these reasons, the “No Action” alternative has been rejected.

The “Project Redesign” alternative would involve redesign of the Rothman project to reduce or avoid altogether take of Morro shoulderband snail. This alternative was not selected, due to the parcel's small size and marginal value to the long-term conservation of the Morro shoulderband snail of habitat on the site. A reduction or redesign of the project footprint would not meet the applicants' needs and would not significantly reduce the effects of the taking of Morro shoulderband snails such that there would be a greater benefit to species survival and recovery. For these reasons, the “Project Redesign” alternative has also been rejected.

We have determined that the applicants' proposal will have a minor or negligible effect on the Morro shoulderband snail and that the HCP qualifies for processing as a low-effect plan consistent with our Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook (December 2016). Three criteria form the basis for our determination: (1) The proposed project as described in the HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and/or candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the HCP would result in minor negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) HCP impacts, considered together with those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in cumulatively significant effects. It is our preliminary determination that HCP approval and ITP issuance qualify for categorical exclusion under the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as provided by the Department of the Interior implementing regulations in part 46 of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and 46.215). However, we may revise our determination based upon review of public comments received in response to this notice.

We will evaluate the permit application, including the draft HCP and comments we receive, to determine whether it meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the ITP would comply with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2).

We request comments from the public regarding our preliminary determination that the applicant's proposal will have a minor or negligible effect on the Morro shoulderband snail and that the HCP qualifies for processing as low effect. We will evaluate comments received and make a final determination regarding whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will incorporate the results of our intra-Service consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether to issue the ITP. If all of our requirements are met, we will issue the ITP to the applicant. Permit issuance would not occur less than 30 days after the publication date of this notice.

If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by either of the methods provided in ADDRESSES.

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

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act and the NEPA public involvement regulations (40 CFR 1500.1(b), 1500.2(d), and 1506.6).

I. Public Comment Procedures A. How do I request copies of applications or comment on submitted applications?

Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Please include the Federal Register notice publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in your request or submission. We will not consider requests or comments sent to an email or address not listed under ADDRESSES. If you provide an email address in your request for copies of applications, we will attempt to respond to your request electronically.

Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES).

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under ADDRESSES. The public may review documents and other information applicants have sent in support of the application unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), along with Executive Order 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,” and the President's Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies of January 21, 2009—Transparency and Open Government (74 FR 4685; Jan. 26, 2009), which call on all Federal agencies to promote openness and transparency in Government by disclosing information to the public, we invite public comment on these permit applications before final action is taken.

We invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.

The applicant requests a permit to import howler monkey (Alouatta palliata palliata) biological samples from nongovernmental organization (NGO) Asociación para el Desarrollo de Solentiname, Isla Mancarrón, El Archipielago de Solentiname, Nicaragua, for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests a permit to import one captive born female jaguar (Panthera onca) from Zoo de Granby, Quebec, Canada, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests renewal of a permit to authorize interstate commerce, export and cull excess barasingha (Rucervus duvaucelii), Eld's deer (Rucervus eldii), and red lechwe (Kobus lechwe) from the captive herds maintained at their facility for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests a permit to import DNA samples from the following species: leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), and hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) for the purpose of scientific research. This notification is for a single import.

The applicant requests a renewal and amendment to a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species: Golden conure/Queen of Bavaria conure (Aratinga guarouba), which is listed as the golden parakeet; red-vented cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia), which is listed as the Philippine cockatoo; citron cockatoo (Cacatua sulphurea citrinocristata); and blue-throated macaw (Ara glaucogularis) to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoises (Astrochelys radiata) to enhance species survival. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The applicant requests a permit to import sport-hunted trophies of a male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancing the propagation or survival of the species.

If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register. You may locate the Federal Register notice announcing the permit issuance date by searching in www.regulations.gov under the permit number listed in this document.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not consider comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES.

If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

A Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2017 (82 FR 18770) to propose adjustments to the irrigation assessment rates at several BIA irrigation projects. The public and interested parties were provided an opportunity to submit written comments during the 60-day period that ended June 20, 2017.

Yes. For the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project, the full rate increase to $33.50 as published in the proposed notice for the 2018 rate will not be implemented. The final 2018 rate will be changed from $33.50 to $29.00, with the remainder of the full rate increase to be implemented in 2019. For the Wind River Irrigation Project, the Crowheart and A Canal Units increase to $15.75 as published in the proposed notice for the 2017 rate will not be implemented. The final 2017 rate is $15.50. All other rates are to be implemented at the respective irrigation projects as published.

Yes. Written comments were received related to the proposed irrigation rate adjustment for the Flathead (FIIP) and Colorado River (CRIIP) Indian Irrigation Projects.

Commenters raised concerns on the proposed rates about the following issues:

Written comments relating to the proposed rate adjustment were received by letter. BIA's summary of the issues and BIA's responses are provided below.

Comment: Several commenters expressed a position that, under the irrigation districts' repayment contracts, only irrigation districts have the power to assess themselves.

Response: As noted in the April 21, 2017 Federal Register notice, BIA is required to establish irrigation assessment rates that recover the costs to administer, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate our projects. As owner of the FIIP, it is BIA's responsibility to ensure adequate resources are made available to meet the requirements noted above. BIA's authority to assess rates dates back to the Act of May 29, 1908, is codified at 25 U.S.C. 381 et seq., and is addressed in the BIA's regulations at 25 CFR part 171. Additionally, the repayment contracts between the irrigation districts and Interior explicitly state that operation and maintenance expenses “shall be paid . . . as provided . . . by rules made or to be made . . . by the Secretary of the Interior.” The repayment contracts between the irrigation districts and Interior capture the irrigators' obligation to pay annual assessments as well as the irrigation districts' authority to collect such assessments for payment to the United States. The authority to assess rates, however, rests solely with Interior and has not been delegated to the irrigation districts.

Comment: Several commenters requested that the rate increase be deferred until current litigation is resolved regarding the transfer of the operation and maintenance of the FIIP.

Response: As current project operator, BIA must plan for the 2018 season and set O&M rates at a level sufficient to cover the costs of administering, operating, maintaining and rehabilitating the FIIP. It is imperative that the project operator be able to operate and maintain the project, ensure adequate staffing levels, purchase supplies and materials, repair and/or replace existing key infrastructure, implement an invasive weed control program, maintain operating equipment, maintain an adequate equipment sinking fund for replacing vital heavy equipment, and maintain an adequate Emergency Reserve Fund. Additionally, the project operator will also need to address deferred maintenance projects on the FIIP.

Comment: One commenter stated that a 29% increase is unwarranted at this time.

Response: The costs associated with operating and maintaining the FIIP have historically and consistently exceeded the amount paid through assessments. Even during the timeframe during which the Cooperative Management Entity operated the FIIP, the O&M assessment rate was increased twice, in 2010 and 2011. Since reassumption, the BIA has made clear the need to increase FIIP assessments rates to address its operation and maintenance needs and has publicly noticed the need to raise rates in both 2015 and 2016 (see 80 FR 33279, June 11, 2015, and 81 FR 51927, August 5, 2016, respectively). The only reason rate increases were not implemented during these years was because of the timeframe necessary to communicate an increase to the counties that collect the O&M funds. Rate increases have been needed for many years, and FIIP's ability to address its operation and maintenance needs have been compromised by not increasing rates since 2011.

Moreover, the methodology used by BIA to determine the 2017 O&M rate was reasonable. Based on a review of historical income receipts and expenditures, a budget of projected income receipts and expenditures is developed approximately two years before the O&M assessments are collected and expenses are incurred. BIA relies on financial reports generated by the Financial and Business Management System for reviewing past expenditures and projecting a future budget and expenditures. Procurement files and records maintained by the FIIP were also reviewed and considered.

Comment: One commenter stated that no rate increase should be made at this time because of local agricultural economics.

Response: BIA's projects are important economic contributors to the local communities they serve, and they contribute millions of dollars in crop value annually. Unfortunately, the costs associated with operating and maintaining an irrigation project may increase independently of prices and costs that are realized by the irrigators. Historically, BIA tempered irrigation rate increases to demonstrate sensitivity to the economic impact on water users, but that past practice resulted in a rate deficiency at some irrigation projects and BIA does not have discretionary funds to subsidize irrigation projects. Therefore, funding to operate and maintain these projects needs to come from revenues from the water users served by those projects.

BIA's irrigation program has been the subject of several Office of Inspector General (OIG) and U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits. In the most recent OIG audit, No. 96-I-641, March 1996, the OIG concluded:

A previous OIG audit performed on one of the BIA's largest irrigation projects, the Wapato Indian Irrigation Project, No. 95-I-1402, September 1995, reached the same conclusion.

To address the issues noted in these audits, BIA must systematically review and evaluate irrigation assessment rates and adjust them, when necessary, to reflect the full costs to operate and perform all appropriate maintenance on the irrigation project or facility infrastructure to ensure safe and reliable operation. If this review and adjustment is not accomplished, a rate deficiency can accumulate over time. Rate deficiencies force BIA to raise irrigation assessment rates in larger increments over shorter periods than would have been otherwise necessary.

Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rate increase was not discussed with the Joint Board of Control (JBC) nor the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT).

Response: The status of the FIIP budget and the need to increase rates were communicated to the JBC as early as 2014 and have been discussed with both the JBC and CSKT numerous times since then. BIA publicly noticed its intent to increase assessment rates in both 2015 and 2016 (see 80 FR 33279, June 11, 2015, and 81 FR 51927, August 5, 2016). Regarding the 2018 proposed increase, the Project Manager provided and discussed the proposed budget information that supports the rate increase to the JBC in January 2017. This information was also provided at an April 11, 2017 water user meeting. The CSKT was also notified of the rate increase.

Comment: One commenter recommended a gradual rate increase over the next 5 to 7 years.

Response: BIA has projected this proposed rate increase for several years, and anticipated increasing the assessment rates in both 2015 and 2016. The FIIP O&M budget was prepared in accordance with BIA financial guidelines. BIA considers the following items when determining an irrigation's project's budget: Project personnel costs; materials and supplies; vehicle and equipment repairs; equipment; capitalization expenses; acquisition expenses; rehabilitation costs; maintenance of a reserve fund for contingencies or emergencies; and other expenses that are determined to be necessary to operate and maintain an irrigation project.

Based on increased costs associated with administering, operating, maintaining and rehabilitating the FIIP, the need for the proposed rate increase is clear and the $7.50 increase is justified. However, given the timing of the Federal Register notice, BIA has decided to impose only a $3.00 increase in 2018 and postpone the remainder of the increase until 2019.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the rate for the Colorado River Indian Tribes should be increased by 11%. Included were several reports related to previous and recent information collected regarding the Colorado River Indian Irrigation Project (CRIIP).

Response: The recent information collected concerning the CRIIP is being evaluated to determine how this might impact the future operation and maintenance activities of the project. However, in order to implement an increase it would be necessary to propose the change and again solicit comments. For the purpose of this notice, the proposed rate as published in the Federal Register at 82 FR 18770 (April 21, 2017) will remain unchanged.

This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the assessable acreage of one of our irrigation projects or if you have a carriage agreement with one of our irrigation projects.

You can contact the appropriate office(s) stated in the tables for the irrigation project that serves you, or you can use the Internet site for the Government Printing Office at www.thefederalregister.org.

Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) by 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14, 1914 (38 Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this authority to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter 8.1A, of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual.

The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts for our irrigation facilities.

The rate table below contains the current rates for all irrigation projects where we recover costs of administering, operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating them. The table also contains the final rates for the 2017 calendar year and subsequent years where applicable. An asterisk immediately following the rate category notes the irrigation projects where 2017 rates are different from the 2016 rates.

This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.1, and is published to comply with the requirements of 25 CFR 151.12 (c)(2)(ii) that notice of the decision to acquire land in trust be promptly provided in the Federal Register.

On January 19, 2017, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs issued a decision to accept the Cherokee Springs Site, consisting of approximately 45.92 acres, more or less, of land in trust for the Nation, under the authority of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs determined that the Nation's request also meets the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's “Oklahoma exception,” 25 U.S.C. 2719(a)(2)(A)(i), to the general prohibition contained in 25 U.S.C. 2719(a) on gaming on lands acquired in trust after October 17, 1988.

The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, will immediately acquire title to the Cherokee Springs Site in the name of the United States of America in trust for the Nation upon fulfillment of Departmental requirements.

The 45.92 acres, more or less, are located in Cherokee County, Oklahoma, and are described as follows:

Section 9 A tract of land situated in the SE1/4 and in the S1/2 S1/2 NE1/4 of Section 9, Township 16 North, Range 22 East of the Indian Meridian, Cherokee County, Oklahoma, being a portion of that parcel of land conveyed to Cherokee Nation Property Management, LLC in Document No. I-2012-008705 filed December 28, 2012 in Book 1055 at Pages 778-779 in the official records of the Cherokee County Clerk, said tract being more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at the Southeast corner of said SE1/4, marked with a Mag Nail;

Thence, N. 89° 52′ 00″ W. along the South boundary of said Section 9, a distance of 1734.91 feet;

Thence, N. 0° 05′ 50″ W., a distance of 758.57 feet to a 3/8″ rebar capped Chaffin LS 1243 to the true POINT OF BEGINNING;

Thence, N. 0°05′50″ W., a distance of 2117.10 feet to a 3/8″ rebar capped Chaffin LS 1243;

Thence, N. 89°54′10″ E., a distance of 1083.04 feet to a 3/8″ rebar capped Chaffin LS 1243;

Thence, S. 0°04′58″ W., a distance of 1215.47 feet to a 3/8″ rebar capped Chaffin LS 1243.

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

(1) Type of Information Collection: Existing collection in use without OMB approval.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Address Verification/Change Request Form (1-797).

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Agency form number: 1-797. Sponsoring component: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The form can be used by any requester who wishes to correct or verify the address submitted on their Departmental Order 556-73 request.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that 720 respondents will complete each form within approximately 2 minutes.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 24 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.

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

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

1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

2. Title of the Form/Collection: ARCOS Transaction Reporting.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: DEA Form 333. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division.

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

Affected public: Business or other for-profit.

Abstract: Section 307 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 827) requires controlled substance manufacturers and distributors to make periodic reports to the DEA regarding the sale, delivery, and other disposal of certain controlled substances. These reports help ensure a closed system of distribution for controlled substances, and are used to comply with international treaty obligations.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The below table presents information regarding the number of respondents, responses and associated burden hours.

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

1. Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2017-2018.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Form numbers not available at this time. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice is the sponsor for the collection.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: State, Local, or Tribal Government. Other: Federal Government, Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions. The work under this clearance will be used to develop and implement surveys to produce estimates for the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault within juvenile correctional facilities as required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-79). Juvenile facility points of contact will be asked to fill out an online survey gathering facility-level characteristics. Sampled youth in custody will be asked to complete an audio computer-assisted self-interview about their experiences inside the facility.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 354 facility points of contact will spend approximately one hour filling out the facility characteristics questionnaire. It is estimated that 8,690 youth respondents will spend approximately 7 minutes going through the assent process and 35 minutes on average responding to the survey.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 12,533 total burden hours associated with this collection (including gathering facility-level information, obtaining parental consent, administrative records, and roster processing).

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Type of Information Collection: Existing.

(2) Title of Form/Collection: Request for Corrective Action Form.

(3) The agency form number, if any/the applicable component of the department sponsoring the collection: No form number/Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Individuals. The application form is submitted voluntarily by individuals who are current or former employees of, or applicants for employment with, the FBI who allege reprisal for their whistleblowing activities.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated to respond/reply: An average of 10 respondents per year, and an average of three hours to complete the form.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: About 30 hours.

If additional information is required, please contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

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

1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Annual Parole Survey, Annual Probation Survey

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Form numbers for the questionnaire are CJ-7 Annual Parole Survey; CJ-8 Annual Probation Survey; CJ-8a Annual Probation Survey (Short Form). The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the Office of Justice Programs.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: State departments of corrections or state probation and parole authorities. Others: The Federal Bureau of Prisons, city and county courts and probation offices for which a central reporting authority does not exist. For the CJ-7 form, the affected public consists of 53 respondents including 51 central reporters (two state respondents in Pennsylvania, and one each from the remaining states), the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons responsible for keeping records on parolees. For the CJ-8 form, the affected public includes 305 reporters including 35 state respondents, the District of Columbia, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and 268 from local authorities responsible for keeping records on probationers. For the CJ-8A form, the affected public includes 151 reporters who are all local authorities responsible for keeping records on probationers. The Annual Parole Survey and Annual Probation surveys have been used since 1977 to collect annual yearend counts and yearly movements of community corrections populations; characteristics of the community supervision population, such as gender, racial composition, ethnicity, conviction status, offense, and supervision status.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 506 Respondents each taking an average of 1.20 hours to respond.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There is an estimated 716 total burden hours associated with this collection.