Federal Register Vol. 82, No.219,

Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

The regulations in §  340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of §  340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.

APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 17-223-01p) from Verdeca LLC (Verdeca), seeking a determination of nonregulated status for the new plant variety called HB4 soybean (Glycine max) designated as event IND-00410-5 that has been genetically engineered for increased yield, stating that this soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

As described in the petition, soybean event IND-00410-5 has been genetically engineered to increase yield through the insertion of the HaHB4 transcription factor gene variant from the sunflower (Helianthus annuus). This gene improves plant fitness by reducing its sensitivity to ethylene, which would otherwise negatively impact growth, allowing the soybean to grow in a greater variety of environments with reduced negative impact on growth, development, and yield. Soybean event IND-00410-5 is currently regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Interstate movements and field tests of soybean event IND-00410-5 have been conducted under permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS. Field tests conducted under APHIS oversight allowed for evaluation in a natural agricultural setting while imposing measures to minimize the risk of persistence in the environment after completion of the test. Data are gathered on multiple parameters and used by the applicant to evaluate agronomic characteristics and product performance. These and other data are used by APHIS to determine if the new variety poses a plant pest risk.

In accordance with §  340.6(d) of the regulations, we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition for a determination of nonregulated status from interested or affected persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. The petition is available for public review, and copies are available as indicated under ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above. We are interested in receiving comments regarding potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that APHIS may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition. We are particularly interested in receiving comments regarding biological, cultural, or ecological issues, and we encourage the submission of scientific data, studies, or research to support your comments. We also request that, when possible, commenters provide relevant information regarding specific localities or regions as soybean growth, crop management, and crop utilization may vary considerably by geographic region.

After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information; any substantive issues identified by APHIS based on our review of the petition and our evaluation and analysis of comments will be considered in the development of our decisionmaking documents.

As part of our decisionmaking process regarding a genetically engineered organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepares a plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) to assess its plant pest risk and the appropriate environmental documentation—either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS)—in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to provide the Agency with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the petition request. For petitions for which APHIS prepares an EA, APHIS will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the EA and PPRA. Should we determine that an EIS is necessary, APHIS will complete the NEPA EIS process in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508) and APHIS' NEPA implementing regulations (7 CFR part 372).

Title: Volunteer Program.

OMB Control Number: 0560-0232.

Expiration Date for Approval: January 31, 2018.

Type of Request: Extension.

Abstract: Section 1526 of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 2272) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program (“the Volunteer Program”) to use volunteers to perform a wide range of activities to carry out the programs of the Department of Agriculture. In addition, 5 U.S.C. 3111 grants agencies the authority to establish programs designed to provide educationally-related work assignments for students in non-pay status. For FSA's volunteer program, each volunteer must follow the same responsibilities and guidelines for conduct that Federal government employees are expected to follow. The volunteers, who are mainly students participating in the sponsored volunteer program, must complete a service agreement, attendance records, and other forms, and provide the required supporting documents to FSA. The information will allow FSA to effectively recruit, train, and accept volunteers to carry out programs supported by the Department of Agriculture, therefore benefitting volunteers, the Department of Agriculture, and the general public.

Without the information, FSA will be unable to document the services provided by the volunteers. FSA will report the collected information to offices within the Department of Agriculture and the Office of Personnel Management that request information on the Volunteer Program.

FSA continues to use forms AD-2022, AD-2023, AD-2024, and AD-2025 in the Volunteer Program. There is no change to the burden hours since the last OMB approval. Also, FSA will remove the FSA-related burden for form OF301 from the generic information collection request approved under OMB control number 0596-0080; FSA had previously used form OF301, but no longer uses that form.

For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.

Estimate of Average Time to Respond: Public reporting burden for collecting information under this notice is estimated to average 15 minutes (0.25) per response for each of the 4 forms, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information for all respondent. Therefore, it would be an average 0.38 hours per response in this collection.

Type of Respondents: Any individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 4.

Estimated Total Annual Reponses: 80.

Estimated Average Time per Response: 0.38 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 30 hours.

We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information to help us to:

(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 collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Evaluate the quality, ability and clarity of the information technology; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget Approval.

A. Background

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA) and its implementing regulations (5 CFR part 1320), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor (e.g., contractually-required information collection by a third-party). “Collection of information,” within the meaning of the PRA, includes agency requests that pose identical questions to, or impose reporting or recordkeeping obligations on, ten or more persons, regardless of whether response to such request is mandatory or voluntary. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c); see also 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). Before seeking clearance from OMB, agencies are generally required, among other things, to publish both 60-day and 30-day notices in the Federal Register to inform the public about proposed extensions of previously-approved information collection, and provide opportunities for comment. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1). In August 2017, the Access Board published a 60-day notice related to the proposed renewal of its generic clearance; no comments were received. The Access Board now publishes this notice to allow an additional 30 days for public comment.

With this notice, the Access Board provides notice of its intent to seek renewal of its existing generic clearance for the collection of qualitative feedback on agency service delivery. We anticipate seeking OMB approval for revisions to the type (and number) of information collection activities relative to our existing generic clearance that expires in January 2018. Specifically, the Access Board intends to seek an increase in the number of approved respondents (and burden hours) under the generic clearance, primarily because we expect to solicit feedback from customers across a broader spectrum of agency programs and services that relate to technical assistance, training, and other education and outreach initiatives. To date, we have found the feedback garnered through qualitative customer satisfaction surveys (and similar information collections) to be beneficial, by providing useful insights in experiences, perceptions, opinions, and expectations regarding Access Board services or focusing attention on areas in need of improvement. We thus intend to seek approval for expansion of our current efforts to solicit qualitative customer feedback by seeking input from customers across a broader array of agency programs and services. Online surveys will be used unless the customer contacts the agency by phone for technical assistance or an individual otherwise expresses a preference for another survey format (i.e., fillable form in portable document format or paper survey). In addition, paper surveys may be used to garner feedback from participants at in-person trainings or similar events.

OMB Control Number: 3014-0011.

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

Type of Review: Extension with revisions.

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

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and Households; Businesses and Organizations; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Burden Estimates: In the table below (Table 1), the Access Board provides estimates for the annual reporting burden under this proposed information collection. (The Access Board does not anticipate incurring any capital or other direct costs associated with this information collection. Nor will there be any costs to respondents, other than their time.)

Request for Comment: The Access Board seeks comment on any aspect of the proposed renewal of our existing generic clearance for the collection of qualitative feedback on agency service delivery, including (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the Access Board's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the Access Board to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information.

This meeting is free and open to the public. Persons with disabilities requiring reasonable accommodations should contact the Midwest Regional Office prior to the meeting to make appropriate arrangements. Members of the public are invited to make statements during an open comment period. In addition, members of the public may submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Louisiana Advisory Committee link (https://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=251). Select “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance of the Committee working in support of the Commission's statutory enforcement report due September 30, 2018.

This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-329-8893, conference ID number: 9974470. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Regional Programs Unit, 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60603. They may be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed Carolyn Allen at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=256. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links to download. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

Members of the FESAC are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee advises the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, the Directors of the BEA and the Census Bureau, and the Commissioner of the Department of Labor's BLS, on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics. The Committee is established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2).

The meeting is open to the public, and a brief period is set aside for public comments and questions. Persons with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing at least three days before the meeting to the Designated Federal Official named above.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Designated Federal Official as soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.

Due to increased security, the following measures will be taken: For access to the meeting, please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting; a photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge; and visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying the applicant and summarizing its application.

Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.

An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21028, Washington, DC 20230.

Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the amended Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 14-4A004.”

Applicant: DFA of California.

Contact: Matthew Krehe, (916) 646-6464.

Application No.: 14-4A004.

Date Deemed Submitted: November 2, 2017.

Proposed Amendment: DFA seeks to amend its Certificate as follows:

1. Add the following new Member of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): John B. SanFilippo & Sons, Inc.

DFA's proposed amendment of its Export Trade Certificate of Review results in the following membership list:

Background: The Council was established on November 4, 2014, to advise the President, through the Secretary of Commerce, on strengthening commercial engagement between the United States and Africa. The Council's charter was renewed for a second, two-year term in September 2017. The Council was established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.

Public Submissions: The public is invited to submit written statements to the Council. Statements must be received by 5:00 p.m. November 22, 2017 by either of the following methods:

Submit statements electronically to Giancarlo Cavallo and Ashley Bubna, Designated Federal Officers, President's Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa, via email: [email protected].

Send paper statements to Giancarlo Cavallo and Ashley Bubna, Designated Federal Officers, President's Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 22004, Washington, DC 20230.

Statements will be provided to the members in advance of the meeting for consideration and also will be posted on the Council Web site (http://trade.gov/pac-dbia). Any business proprietary information should be cleared and designated as such. All statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure.

Meeting minutes: Copies of the Council's meeting minutes will be available within ninety (90) days of the meeting on the Council's Web site at http://trade.gov/pac-dbia.

Section 104 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) allows permits to be issued to take or import marine mammals for public display purposes, and section 109 requires the release of rehabilitated marine mammals to their natural habitat whenever feasible. The MMPA regulations at 50 CFR 216.27(b)(4) allow the NMFS OPR Director to require the use of a rehabilitated marine mammal for public display (or research or enhancement) in lieu of a take from the wild.

From 2005-2016, NMFS issued three permits authorizing the retention of releasable marine mammals (rehabilitated animals cleared for release back to the wild) for public display purposes under section 104 of the MMPA and NMFS' implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216. A permit was required for placement of releasable stranded animals (as opposed to non-releasable animals, which NMFS places in accordance with an administrative process rather than a permit) because NMFS views retention of a releasable marine mammal as the functional equivalent of a take from the wild (i.e., the animal would have otherwise been released and would presumably have contributed to the wild population). These three permits were based upon NMFS' interpretation of the regulations at 50 CFR 216.27(b)(4), which state the NMFS OPR Director may require use of a rehabilitated marine mammal for public display purposes in lieu of animals taken from the wild. The three previous permit applicants were not required to request an actual “take” of animals from the wild, as the placement of a releasable animal was considered in lieu of such take.

However, NMFS received numerous public comments on the three issued permits asserting that permits to retain releasable marine mammals are in direct contradiction to the purpose of Title IV and section 109(h) of the MMPA, which mandate the rescue and rehabilitation of stranded marine mammals with the goal of releasing the animals to the wild when feasible. Commenters specifically expressed concerns that the process for assessing the actual impact of a take from the wild was largely circumvented.

After evaluation and reconsideration of this permit process and as a result of public comments on the three permits issued, NMFS has developed a new draft Procedural Directive to clarify its interpretation of MMPA regulations and procedures for authorizing releasable rehabilitated marine mammals to be retained for purposes of public display.

In the Procedural Directive, NMFS is proposing to no longer issue permits for the specific purpose of obtaining releasable marine mammals from the National Stranding Network for public display. Instead, would-be applicants must apply for a permit to take (collect) from the wild pursuant to the MMPA. In the event NMFS decides to grant such a permit, the NMFS OPR Director may then, at his or her discretion, require that a releasable rehabilitated marine mammal be substituted for capturing an animal from the wild, in accordance with 50 CFR 216.27.

NMFS believes this approach is more consistent with the statutory provisions governing rehabilitation and release of stranded marine mammals (MMPA section 109(h) and MMPA Title IV), which are separate and distinct from the provisions governing issuance of permits for the take of animals from the wild for purposes of public display (MMPA section 104).

As required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The complete charter and summaries of prior meetings are located online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/mafac/.

This meeting time and agenda are subject to change.

The meeting is convened to hear presentations and updates and to discuss policies and guidance on the following topics: The importance of timely data for fisheries resiliency; Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force efforts on the conservation and restoration of salmon and steelhead; aquaculture; citizen science; NMFS communications, outreach, and FishWatch; and the budget outlook for FY2018. MAFAC will discuss various administrative and organizational matters, and meetings of subcommittees and working groups will be convened.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Heidi Lovett; 301-427-8034 by November 15, 2017.

Notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC's CBP Task Force. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The complete MAFAC charter and summaries of prior MAFAC meetings are located online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/mafac/. The CBP Task Force reports to MAFAC and is being convened to discuss and develop recommendations for long-term goals to meet Columbia Basin salmon recovery, conservation needs, and harvest opportunities. These goals will be developed in the context of habitat capacity and other factors that affect salmon mortality. More information is available at the CBP Task Force Web page: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/columbia_river/index.html.

The meeting time and agenda are subject to change. Updated information will be available on the CBP Task Force Web page above. Meeting topics include progress reports on applying the analytical framework to example species as prototypes and updates on quantitative goal setting, guiding principles, and vision. The meeting is open to the public as observers, and public input will be accepted on December 6, 2017, from 3:30 to 4 p.m., limited to the time available.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Katherine Cheney; 503-231-6730, by November 28, 2017.

This action is authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.745, which states that EFPs may be used to authorize fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited.

At its June 2016 meeting, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) received an EFP application from TNC for the use of pot gear to target lingcod within the non-trawl RCA offshore of Washington and Oregon. An initial opportunity for public comment was provided during this meeting. At that time, the Council recommended that NMFS consider issuing the EFP for a period of two years (i.e., 2017 and 2018). The two-year duration was intended to coincide with the 2017-18 biennial harvest specifications and management measures process. However, due to unforeseen delays, NMFS was unable to issue this EFP for 2017, and is proposing to issue the EFP described below beginning in 2018. The EFP would expire no later than December 31, 2018.

In 2014, during preliminary gear testing conducted by TNC and their research partners, catch of lingcod was lower than anticipated. During testing, the gear was only fished in areas open to non-trawl groundfish fishing, which included the area seaward of the non-trawl RCA, in depths ranging from approximately 100-200 fathoms (fm) (54.7-109.4 meters). Applicants hypothesize that low catch of lingcod was primarily due to the non-trawl RCA (a depth-based area closure prohibiting fishing for lingcod with pot gear from approximately 30 fathoms to 100 fathoms), closing depths where lingcod are most commonly found (i.e., shallower than 100 fm). Subsequently, TNC proposed and the Council recommended to NMFS an EFP which would provide an exemption to participating vessels to target lingcod with pot gear inside the non-trawl RCA off Washington and Oregon. This EFP is necessary to allow activities that are otherwise prohibited by Federal regulations. As the RCAs were implemented to reduce incidental catch of overfished species, it is not uncommon for the Council to recommend to NMFS the permitting of fishing opportunities to occur inside a RCA when the gear is highly selective, with low bycatch of non-target and overfished groundfish species.

Entanglement of humpback whales in pot gear buoy lines is a concern, particularly in the West Coast sablefish pot fishery, which is designated as a Category II fishery in the 2017 List of Fisheries (82 FR 9690, February 8, 2017) due to its occasional interactions with humpback whales; the last of which was documented in 2006. Concerns with regards to the pot gear, similar to sablefish pot gear with regards to the buoy lines, being employed in the proposed EFP are mitigated because the magnitude of the fishing effort permitted under this EFP would be minimal and occur off Oregon, where fewer documented interactions between pot gear and humpback whales has occurred. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to approve the EFP consistent with general requirements following the conclusion of the public comment period. Subsequently, NMFS would issue the actual permits for the EFP to individual participants and TNC as the entity coordinating EFP-related fishing activities as appropriate. NMFS intends to use an adaptive management approach for this EFP in which NMFS may revise requirements and protocols to improve the EFP without issuing another Federal Register Notice, provided that the modifications fall within the scope of the Council's original intent. Such changes may be granted without further public notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and result in only a minimal change in the scope or impacts of the initially approved EFP request.

In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, a Categorical Exclusion or other appropriate National Environmental Policy Act document would be completed prior to the issuance of any permits under this EFP. Further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue the permits. After publication of this document in the Federal Register, the EFP, if approved by NMFS, may be implemented following the public comment period. NMFS would consider comments submitted, as well as the Council's discussion at their June 2016 Council meeting, in deciding whether to approve the application as requested. NMFS may approve the application in its entirety or may make any alterations needed to achieve the goals of the EFP.

In September 2017, the Council received an application for an EFP from the West Coast Seafood Processors Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Oregon Trawl Commission, and Midwater Trawlers Cooperative to test if and how the removal of certain gear, time, and area restrictions for the Shorebased IFQ Program may impact the nature and extent of prohibited species bycatch, particularly salmon and eulachon. This EFP is intended to allow participating limited entry groundfish bottom trawl and midwater trawl vessels more flexibility in 2018 to target pelagic rockfish species, such as widow, chilipepper, and yellowtail rockfish. An opportunity for public testimony was provided during the Council meeting, after which the Council recommended the EFP with several changes. Specifically, the Council narrowed the number of exemptions they recommended to include in the EFP. After the Council meeting, the applicants updated their application based on the Council's recommendations and resubmitted a final version of the application to NMFS on October 4, 2017. Copies of the final version of the application are available from NMFS. (See ADDRESSES for how to obtain this information).

In late 2016, industry members proposed a trawl gear EFP for 2017 (later known as the 2017 trawl gear EFP) to provide them exemptions to the minimum mesh size requirement and exemptions to the requirement to use selective flatfish trawl shoreward of the trawl RCA north of 42° North latitude (N. lat) for limited entry bottom trawl vessels. Since implementation of the 2017 trawl gear EFP in March 2017, limited entry groundfish bottom trawl vessels have been testing their new gear configurations by targeting midwater pelagic rockfish (primarily widow rockfish and yellowtail rockfish) using modified bottom trawl gear north of 42° N. lat. shoreward of the trawl RCA with minimal impacts on Chinook salmon. As of the end of October 2017, there have been 50 trips taken by 10 vessels, and they have caught a total of four Chinook salmon. Information on gear configurations has been collected, and the data would helpful information any potential modifications or elimination of current gear restrictions.

To continue collecting information on impacts to salmon and eulachon that may arise from the modification or elimination of gear, time, and area regulations, the applicants have requested a 2018 trawl gear EFP that expands upon the 2017 trawl gear EFP. The trawl gear EFP in 2018 would provide participating vessels with several exemptions regarding the required minimum mesh size, the requirement to use selective flatfish trawl gear shoreward of the trawl RCA and north of 42° N. lat., the prohibition on fishing with midwater groundfish trawl gear north of 40°10′ N. lat. in all areas prior to May 15th each year, the prohibition on fishing with midwater groundfish trawl gear south of 40°10′ N. lat. within the boundaries of the trawl RCA (midwater groundfish trawling would still be prohibited shoreward of the RCA and south of 40°10′ N. lat.), the prohibition on bringing a new haul onboard before a previous haul is stowed, and the prohibition on carrying and fishing more than one type of groundfish trawl gear (midwater and bottom trawl gear) on the same trip.

If approved, vessels fishing on an EFP trip with bottom trawl gear would be permitted to use any small footrope gear that meets the definition in regulations at § 660.11 shoreward of the RCA and north of 42° N. lat. similar to what is required south of 40°10′ N. lat. Vessels fishing on an EFP trip with limited entry midwater trawl vessels would be permitted to fish within all areas north of 40°10′ N. lat. and within the boundaries and seaward of the RCA south of 40°10′ N. lat. for the duration of this EFP. These vessels would not be constrained to the primary whiting season dates. All participating groundfish bottom trawl and midwater trawl vessels on an EFP trip would be permitted to carry and fish both groundfish trawl gear types (bottom trawl and midwater trawl) on the same trip, assuming the proper declarations are made, and bring a new haul on board before a previous haul is stowed. Finally, vessels fishing on an EFP trip would not be constrained by the mesh requirements regarding size or how it is measured. Participating vessels would carry observers or use a NMFS-approved electronic monitoring system on 100-percent of trips, as is currently required in the IFQ program.

NMFS has some concerns with the potential impacts these exemptions may have on protected and prohibited species. The best available data suggests that bycatch rates of Endangered Species Act listed salmon, eulachon, and green sturgeon could increase as a result of the increased effort resulting from this EFP. However, because a targeted fishery for chilipepper, widow, and yellowtail rockfish has not existed in more than a decade and the fishery has changed a lot since this data was collected, this data may not reflect current bycatch rates resulting in its limited utility for predicting current impacts to protected and prohibited species. Thus, NMFS has been working with the applicant to develop an EFP that would meet the applicants' objectives to better target pelagic rockfish species while collecting information about bycatch and minimizing bycatch to the extent practicable. To address NMFS's concerns, the applicants included in their application a requirement to collect bycatch information at the haul level and genetic samples on all salmon caught. Additionally, the applicants proposed and the Council recommended that all salmon caught by vessels participating in this EFP would be subject to a total salmon harvest guideline of 3,547 Chinook salmon. In addition, the Council recommend two sub-harvest guidelines to further help mitigate against potential impacts:

• Prior to May 15th—All vessels fishing on an EFP trip north of 42° N. lat. would be subject to a sub-harvest guideline of 720 Chinook salmon (out of the 3,547 Chinook salmon total harvest guideline) for this area, including seaward, within, and shoreward of the trawl RCA, from the inception of this EFP until 12:01 a.m. on May 15th which corresponds to the start of the Primary whiting season for the Shorebased IFQ fishery. From May 15th through the end of this EFP, all EFP trips taken north of 42° N. lat. would be subject to the remainder of total harvest guideline (3,547 Chinook salmon) for the EFP.

• South of 42° N. lat.—All vessels fishing on an EFP trip south of 42° N. lat. would be subject to a sub-harvest guideline of 80 Chinook salmon (out of the 3,547 Chinook salmon harvest guideline) for this area for the duration of this EFP.

If the overall harvest guideline of 3,547 Chinook salmon for the EFP is reached, the EFP would be shut down. Additionally, if a sub-harvest guideline is reached EFP trips for which that sub-harvest guideline apply would be shut down. For example, if vessels fishing north of 42° N. lat. prior to May 15th catch more than 720 Chinook salmon, the EFP would be shut down until May 15th when it would open back up in this area under the 3,547 Chinook salmon harvest guideline. For the area south of 42° N. lat., if any time during the EFP vessels fishing in this area catch more than 80 Chinook salmon, the EFP activity in the area south of 42° N. lat. would be shut down and would not reopen for the remainder of the EFP.

The applicants have not proposed a specific list of participating vessels, as is traditionally the case, but rather are proposing that NMFS publish a public notice to gauge interest from limited entry groundfish midwater and bottom trawl vessels. Depending on the amount of interest and where vessels may be fishing, NMFS may need to limit participation by time and area to mitigate against potential impacts. Participating vessels that enroll in the EFP would be required to declare into and out of the EFP on a monthly basis by notifying NMFS.

Information collected under the EFP could be used to support the analysis for potential new and modifications to existing gear regulations. With many of the current gear regulations having been in place for more than ten years, it is difficult for NMFS, the Council, and industry to predict the impacts of removing these regulations. In the past ten years, the industry has changed significantly. Reduction in capacity, innovations in gear technologies, and changes in management have all contributed to these changes. This EFP would help demonstrate what potential impacts, if any, today's fleet may have if some of the current gear, area, and time regulations are modified from what is currently in regulation.

Therefore, NMFS is proposing to approve a 2018 trawl gear EFP, covering all the exemptions stated above following the conclusion of the public comment period, review of public comment, and completion of an analysis of the potential impacts. Pending approval, NMFS would issue the permits for the EFP to the vessel owner or designated representative as the “EFP holder.” NMFS intends to use an adaptive management approach in which NMFS may revise requirements and protocols to improve the program without issuing another Federal Register Notice, provided that the modifications fall within the scope of the original EFP. In addition, the applicants may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the course of research. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further public notice if they are determined essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and result in only a minimal change in the scope or impacts of the initially approved EFP request.

In accordance with NAO Administrative Order 216-6, a Categorical Exclusion or other appropriate National Environmental Policy Act document would be completed prior to the issuance of any permits under this EFP. After publication of this document in the Federal Register, the EFP, if approved by NMFS, may be implemented following the public comment period. NMFS would consider comments submitted, as well as the Council's discussion at their September 2017 Council meeting, in deciding whether to approve the application as requested. NMFS may approve the application in its entirety or may make any alterations needed to achieve the goals of the EFP.

Species Covered in This Notice

The following listed species are covered in this notice:

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Threatened Lower Columbia River (LCR); threatened Puget Sound (PS); threatened Snake River (SR) spring/summer-run; threatened Snake River (SR) fall-run; endangered Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run; threatened Upper Willamette River (UWR).

Steelhead (O. mykiss): Threatened LCR; threatened Middle Columbia River (MCR); threatened PS; threatened SR; threatened UCR; threatened UWR.

Chum salmon (O. keta): Threatened Hood Canal Summer-run (HCS); threatened Columbia River (CR).

Coho salmon (O. kisutch): Threatened LCR; threatened Oregon Coast (OC) coho.

Sockeye salmon (O. nerka): Threatened Ozette Lake (OL); endangered SR.

Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus): Threatened Southern (S).

Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris): Threatened Southern (S).

Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

The City of Bellingham (COB) is seeking to renew, for five years, a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in Cemetery, Padden, Silver, and Squalicum creeks in Bellingham, WA. The purpose of the COB study is to assess the effectiveness of habitat restoration activities within the City of Bellingham by documenting population trends for salmonids inhabiting these urban creeks. These restoration actions include native riparian and upland plantings, large woody debris and gravel augmentation, re-routing and re-structuring of degraded stream channel, and floodplain re-connection. This research would benefit the affected species by informing future restoration designs, providing data to support future enhancement projects, and helping managers assess salmonid population status in these urban systems. The COB proposes to capture fish using a smolt trap (V-shaped channel-spanning weirs with live boxes) in only one of the aforementioned streams annually. Captured fish would be anesthetized, identified to species, measured, have a tissue sample taken (to determine their origin), and allowed to recover in cool, aerated water before being released back to the stream. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.

The City of Portland is seeking to modify a permit that currently authorizes them to take juvenile and adult MCR steelhead, UCR spring Chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, SR spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, SR fall-run Chinook salmon, SR steelhead, SR sockeye salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, LCR steelhead, CR chum salmon, UWR Chinook salmon, UWR steelhead, OC coho salmon, and S green sturgeon in the Columbia and Willamette rivers and tributaries (Oregon). The research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The permit modification would not change the methods or scope of the ongoing research, except to increase the number of incidental mortalities authorized for juvenile UWR steelhead from one to five juvenile fish annually. This research is part of the Portland Watershed Management Plan, which aims to improve watershed health in the Portland area. In this program, researchers sample 37 sites annually across all Portland watersheds for hydrology, habitat, water chemistry, and biological communities. The research would benefit listed salmonids by providing information to assess watershed health, status of critical habitat, effectiveness of watershed restoration actions, and compliance with regulatory requirements. The City of Portland proposes to capture juvenile fish using backpack and boat electrofishing, hold fish in a bucket of aerated water, take caudal fin clips for genetic analysis, and release fish at a point near their capture site that would be chosen to minimize the likelihood of recapture. The researchers would avoid contact with adult fish. The researchers do not propose to kill any fish but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is seeking to renew, for five years, a research permit that currently allows them to take adult PS/GB bocaccio, juvenile HCS chum salmon and PS steelhead, and juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon throughout the marine waters of Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Washington State). The USGS research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon and PS/GB yelloweye rockfish—species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The purpose of the USGS study is to examine salmonid stage-specific growth, bioenergetics, competition, and predation during the critical early marine growth period. Additionally, unlisted salmonid species, herring, and other forage fish species would be studied. This research would benefit the affected species by quantifying key factors limiting Chinook survival and production. The USGS proposes capturing fish by mid-water trawl, hook and line (micro trolling), beach seine, and purse seine. The mid-water trawling would be conducted by Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (CDFO) research vessels using a mid-water rope trawl during daylight at various depths and velocities and would be coordinated with surveys in Canadian waters. For the mid-water trawls, the fish would be identified to species, weighed, measured for length, tissue-sampled (fin clip and scales), and checked for coded wire tags (CWTs). Viable sub-adult/adult salmon and rockfish would be released. Listed rockfish would be released via rapid submergence to their capture depth to reduce the effects from barotrauma, and sub-adult/adult salmonids would be released at the surface. Juvenile salmonids that suffer lethal injuries due to crushing and descaling would be further sampled for CWTs, scales, fins, stomach contents, and otoliths. For the other capture methods, the fish would be anesthetized, identified to species, checked for CWTs, measured to length, gastric lavaged, tissue-sampled (fin clip and scales), and released. For the seining, all juvenile, hatchery-origin, CWT fish would be intentionally sacrificed to determine their origins. The researchers do not propose to kill any other captured fish, but some may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is seeking to renew, for five years, a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon, HCS chum salmon, PS steelhead, and OL sockeye salmon throughout the streams of Clallam, Jefferson, and Grays Harbor counties in western Washington State. The purpose of the WDNR study is to determine potential fish presence or absence in streams located on WDNR-managed lands in order to support a region-wide program of road maintenance and abandonment. This research would benefit the affected species by determining which streams with road-related passage barriers contain listed fish and, thus, allow WDNR to focus its resources on road improvements that would best help those species. The WDNR proposes to capture fish using backpack electrofishing equipment and minnow traps. Captured fish would be netted, identified to species, and released. In most cases, the stream survey would terminate when one listed fish is located. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is seeking to renew, for five years, a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. The NWFSC research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Study locations include several bays and estuaries in the Puget Sound that receive effluent from municipal wastewater plants and industrial contaminant sources. The purpose of the NWFSC study is to assess the bioaccumulation and toxic effects of Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CECs) in Chinook salmon. Whole genome and molecular analyses of Chinook salmon would be conducted on various tissues, which would allow for identification of gene pathways and robust mechanism-based diagnostic indices for CEC toxicity. This research would benefit the listed species by identifying degraded estuaries, studying how CECs affect Chinook salmon, and providing information that can be used to mitigate and improve listed species habitat. The NWFSC proposes to capture fish using beach seines. Sampling would occur at seven locations up to two times annually. For each sample event, 40 juvenile Chinook salmon would be euthanized for whole body analysis. The researchers would prioritize using adipose-fin-clipped hatchery fish and unintentional mortalities over natural-origin fish. Excess Chinook salmon (and all other species) would be released immediately after capture. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed steelhead or eulachon being captured, but some may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is seeking to renew, for five years, a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in the Nooksack, Sauk, Skagit, and Stillaguamish River drainages of western Washington. The purpose of the USFS study is to expand distributional knowledge of the Salish sucker (Catostomus sp. cf. catostomus), a species listed as endangered in Canada since 2005 by the Species At Risk Act (SARA). Tissue samples would also be collected from captured Salish suckers for genetic analysis to determine their genetic separation from the longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus)—a species that they are considered to be diverging from. The research would benefit the listed species by providing information on their distribution. The main benefactor of this research is the Salish sucker whose status is not well understood in the United States. The USFS proposes to capture fish using minnow and Feddes traps. Captured salmonids would be identified to species, checked for an adipose fin clip, and immediately released downstream. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.

The Coastal Watershed Institute (CWI) is seeking to renew, for five years, a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon, HCS chum salmon, and PS steelhead in the Elwha River estuary (Washington State). The CWI research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The purpose of the CWI study is to research the nearshore restoration response to the Elwha River dam removals with an emphasis on ecological function of nearshore habitats for juvenile salmon and forage fish. The research would benefit listed species by providing a long-term continuous dataset on how salmonids use local nearshore areas after the dam removals on the Elwha River. This study provides information on how watersheds and fish populations recover after dam removals. The CWI proposes to capture fish using a beach seine. Captured fish would be identified to their lowest taxonomic level. At each sampling event, twenty individuals from each species would be measured and released. Salmonids would be scanned for fin clips and tags. The researchers do not propose to kill any listed fish being captured, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.

The Pierce County Department of Public Works and Utilities (PCDPWU) is seeking to renew, for five years, a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in the waterways of Pierce County, Washington. The purpose of the PCDPWU study is to determine the distribution and diversity of anadromous fish species in the waterbodies adjacent to and within the county's levee system. The surveys would help establish listed salmonid presence in waterbodies—information that would be used to assess the impacts proposed projects might have on listed species. The PCDPWU proposes to capture fish using seines, dip netting, minnow traps, fyke nets, hook and line, and backpack electrofishing. Electrofishing would largely be “spotshocking” for presence and absence and would not typically cover broad, continuous areas. Captured fish would be identified, measured, and then released at or near their capture site. Fish would not be removed from the water unless absolutely necessary. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.

The NWFSC is seeking a two-year research permit to annually take adult PS/GB bocaccio and sub-adult PS Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound near the San Juan Islands (Washington state). The NWFSC research may also cause them to take adult PS/GB yelloweye rockfish—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The purpose of the NWFSC study is to assess the role Chinook salmon residency plays in salmon recovery—including growth, movement patterns, and population structure. This research would benefit the affected species by giving managers information on which populations contribute to the resident PS Chinook salmon population in the San Juan Islands and heling determine the relationship between the Chinook resident life-history type and overall marine survival. These efforts would serve as the foundation for evaluating the relative contribution residents make to the broader ESU—and thereby help managers understand how this behavior type can help salmon recovery. The NWFSC proposes to capture fish using hook and line angling equipment. Captured salmon would be scanned for CWT, measured for length, tissue-sampled (scales and fin clips), and released. Hatchery-origin Chinook salmon would also be anesthetized and gastric lavaged. Fifty adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin subadult Chinook salmon would be intentionally sacrificed annually to obtain otolith samples movement patterns and early growth history may be analyzed. Listed rockfish would be released immediately via rapid submergence to their capture depth to reduce the effects from barotrauma. The researchers do not propose to kill any other captured fish, but some may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The University of Washington (UW) is seeking to renew, for five years, a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and adult OL sockeye salmon in Lake Ozette (northwest Washington State). The purpose of the UW study is to investigate the interactions of native predators (i.e., northern pikeminnow, sculpin) and non-native predators (i.e., largemouth bass, yellow perch) with Olympic mudminnow (Novumbra hubbsi), a state sensitive species. The research would benefit the listed species because OL sockeye salmon are similarly threatened by the same predators. The UW proposes to capture fish using minnow traps, hoop nets, gill nets, trammel nets, and hook and line. For OL sockeye salmon, captured fish would be handled and immediately released. After the listed fish are released, the remaining fish would be anesthetized, fin clipped, gastric lavaged, and released. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is seeking to modify a permit that currently authorizes research in lake, river, backwater, slough, and estuary habitats in the Willamette and Columbia basins (Oregon) and on the Oregon coast. The permit would cover the following projects for four years: (1) Warmwater and Recreational Game Fish Management, (2) District Fish Population Sampling in the Upper Willamette Basin, and (3) Salmonid Assessment and Monitoring in the Deschutes River. These studies provide information on fish population structure, abundance, genetics, disease occurrences, and species interactions, and is used to direct management actions to benefit listed species. The permit modification would not change the methods or scope of the ongoing research, except to add take of juvenile and adult UWR Chinook and UWR steelhead at new research sites in the Tualatin and Yamhill Rivers. The modified permit would authorize take of juvenile UCR spring-run Chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, SR spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, SR fall-run Chinook salmon, SR Basin steelhead, SR sockeye salmon, MCR steelhead, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, LCR steelhead, CR chum salmon, and OC coho salmon; juvenile and adult UWR Chinook salmon and UWR steelhead; and adult S green sturgeon. The ODFW research may also take adult S eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Researchers would sample fish using boat electrofishing. A subset of captured juveniles would be anesthetized, weighed and measured, allowed to recover, and then released. Most juveniles and all adults would be allowed to swim away after being electroshocked, or they would be netted and released immediately. The ODFW does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

The NWFSC is seeking a two-year permit that would allow them to take juvenile LCR Chinook salmon, SR fall-run Chinook salmon, SR spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, UCR spring-run Chinook salmon, UWR Chinook salmon, CR chum salmon, LCR coho salmon, SR sockeye salmon, LCR steelhead, MCR steelhead, SR Basin steelhead, UCR steelhead, UWR steelhead, and S green sturgeon. The research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The purpose of the study is to measure contaminant levels in juvenile UWR Chinook salmon in the lower Willamette River (Oregon) near a Superfund site with high levels of pollutants and to evaluate associations between toxins in fish tissues and fish growth and immune response. Study results would support an ongoing Natural Resource Damage Assessment. In addition, the data would be used in Chinook salmon life cycle models to compare how chemical pollution affects UWR Chinook salmon populations relative to other stressors.

The researchers propose to collect fish with beach seines at sites in the lower 20 miles of the Willamette River. The researchers hope to complete all sampling between March and June 2018, but fieldwork could extend to other months and to 2019 if sample size targets are not met in the initial timeframe. The researchers propose to hold fish in buckets, identify and count fish, check fish for passive integrated transponder and coded wire tags, and then immediately release any fish that is not a juvenile Chinook salmon with an intact adipose fin. The researchers propose using a lethal dose of MS-222 to kill natural-origin juvenile Chinook salmon that are between 50 and 80 mm in fork length. The target ESU for contaminant analysis is UWR Chinook, but juvenile Chinook salmon from other ESUs in the Columbia River basin could also be killed because juveniles from different ESUs cannot be distinguished visually. Fish that are killed would be frozen individually and later identified to ESU using genetic analysis. The researchers would pool UWR Chinook specimens into composite samples for toxicological analysis and would use scales and otoliths for analysis of age and growth. Specimens that are identified through genetic analysis to an ESU other than the UWR Chinook ESU would be saved and offered for use in other studies pending NMFS approval.

The NWFSC researchers used information from past studies to estimate the number of fish needed to obtain enough tissues for statistically robust sample sizes, and to estimate expected mortality rates of fish from non-target ESUs. Based on this information, the NWFSC proposes to intentionally kill up to: 201 natural-origin and 9 hatchery-origin (intact adipose fin) juvenile UWR Chinook salmon; 119 natural-origin and 5 hatchery-origin (intact adipose fin) juvenile LCR Chinook salmon; 4 natural-origin juvenile SR fall-run Chinook salmon; 2 natural-origin juvenile SR spring/summer-run Chinook salmon; and 5 natural-origin juvenile UCR spring-run Chinook salmon. Any Chinook salmon unintentionally killed during the research would be used in lieu of a fish that would otherwise be sacrificed. The NWFSC does not intend to kill any fish that is not a juvenile Chinook salmon, but a small number of individuals from other species may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

Cramer Fish Sciences is seeking a research permit, for two years, that would allow them to take juvenile LCR Chinook, LCR coho, LCR steelhead, and MCR steelhead in the Klickitat, Wind, and White Salmon River subbasins (Washington). The purpose of the research is to determine fish occupancy in stream reaches in lands owned by SDS Lumber Company. Cramer Fish Sciences proposes to capture fish using single-pass backpack electrofishing, identify fish while they are held briefly in hand-held dip nets, and return fish to the stream. The researchers would compare results of the electrofishing surveys with environmental DNA (eDNA) studies done in the same stream reaches, which would provide information on the utility of eDNA analysis for determining fish occupancy. The research would benefit listed fish by affording them protections if they are found in streams that previously were assessed as non-fish bearing. The researchers do not propose to kill any fish but a small number may die as an unintended result of research activities.

Mount Hood Environmental is seeking a research permit, for three years, that would allow them to take juvenile and adult UWR steelhead and UWR Chinook in the Tualatin River (Oregon). The purpose of the research is to determine if salmonids and lamprey are present in the intake channel from the Tualatin River to the Spring Hill Pumping Plant and if these fish are likely to be entrained in the intake. The study would benefit listed fish by providing information to manage and mitigate for potential entrainment of these fish during early life-stages. The researchers propose to work in the intake channel, where they would measure water temperature and velocity, capture fish by seining, trapping, and boat-electrofishing, hold fish in aerated buckets, identify them, and then release them back to the channel. The researchers do not propose to kill any fish but a small number may die as an unintended result of research activities.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register.

Pursuant to section 304(e)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(2), NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, must notify Councils, and publish in the Federal Register, whenever it determines that a stock or stock complex is subject to overfishing, overfished, or approaching an overfished condition.

NMFS has determined that the Stillaguamish coho salmon stock in Puget Sound is now subject to overfishing, as the current estimate of fishing mortality (F) exceeds its maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT). This determination is based on a 2017 assessment—using data from 2015—produced by the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Salmon Technical Team (STT). The Pacific Council manages this stock. Since this stock migrates north, it is also managed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (Treaty), a bilateral agreement to facilitate management of certain salmon stocks between the United States and Canada. The Pacific Salmon Commission (Commission) implements this Treaty. NMFS has informed the Pacific Council of this determination and that, if exceedance of MFMT for Stillaguamish coho continues, the Council may consider taking further action, consistent with the provisions of the FMP. Due to the international management of this stock, the Pacific Council has limited ability to control ocean fisheries in waters outside their jurisdiction.

NMFS has determined that the Klamath River fall Chinook salmon stock on the Northern California coast, the Queets coho salmon stock on the Washington coast, and the Skagit coho salmon stock in Puget Sound are all approaching an overfished condition. These determinations are made when the 3-year geometric mean of each stock's two most recent postseason estimates of spawning escapement and the current preseason forecast of spawning escapement is below the stock's minimum stock size threshold (MSST). The determination for Chinook is based on a 2017 assessment—using data from 2015-2017—produced by the Pacific Council's STT using methodologies that have been reviewed by the Pacific Council's Science and Statistical Committee. The determinations for the two coho stocks are based on a 2017 assessment—using data from 2014-2015, 2017—produced by the Commission's Coho Technical Committee. NMFS informed the Pacific Council that if any of these stocks become overfished, they must direct the STT to prepare a rebuilding plan within one year. Due to the international management of the coho stocks, the Pacific Council has limited ability to control ocean fisheries in waters outside their jurisdiction.

NMFS has determined that Puerto Rico spiny lobster and the Puerto Rico Triggerfishes and Filefishes Complex are both still subject to overfishing because the 2015 landings exceeded the overfishing limits (OFLs). NMFS is working with the Caribbean Fishery Management Council to implement conservation and management measures to end overfishing on this stock and stock complex.

I. Abstract

Customers may submit payments to the USPTO by several methods, including credit card, deposit account, electronic funds transfer (EFT), and paper check transactions. The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 41 and 15 U.S.C. 1113 are implemented in 37 CFR 1.16-1.28, 2.6-2.7, and 2.206-2.209. Under 35 U.S.C. 41 and 15 U.S.C. 1113, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) charges processing fees in the form of service charges related to deposit accounts and payments refused.

This information collection includes the Credit Card Payment Form (PTO-2038), which provides the public with a convenient way to submit a credit card payment for fees related to a patent, trademark, or information product. Customers may also submit credit card payments via the USPTO Payment Page when using online systems through the USPTO Web site for paying fees related to patents, trademarks, or information products.

Customers may establish a deposit account for making fee payments online using Financial Manager at the USPTO Web site. Deposit accounts eliminate the need to submit a check, credit card, or other form of payment for each fee transaction with the USPTO. Additionally, in the event that a fee amount due is miscalculated, customers may authorize the USPTO to charge any remaining balance to the deposit account and therefore avoid the potential consequences of underpayment. As customers use their deposit accounts to make payments, they may deposit funds to replenish their accounts by mailing a check to the USPTO, sending funds via wire transfer, or making a deposit online via EFT using Financial Manager at the USPTO Web site. Replenishments may not be made by credit card. Customers may close or withdraw funds from their deposit accounts online using Financial Manager at the USPTO Web site.

In addition to credit cards and deposit accounts, customers may also use EFT to make online fee payments to the USPTO. Customers must first establish a user profile and submit their banking information online through Financial Manager at the USPTO Web site.

Under 37 CFR 1.26 and 2.209, the USPTO may refund fees paid by mistake or in excess of the required amount. For refund requests customers may submit a written request to the Refund Branch of the USPTO Office of Finance.

The USPTO deployed the Financial Manager system allowing customers to add, manage, and report on payment methods in their online user profiles at the USPTO Web site. After establishing a USPTO.gov account username and password, customers may add their credit card, deposit account, and EFT information to their account using the Financial Manager web interface. Customers may then manage and report on these stored payment methods online. The stored payment methods may be used when the customer conducts transactions with the USPTO.

By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or electronically to the USPTO.

OMB Number: 0651-0043.

IC Instruments and Forms: PTO-2038.

Type of Review: Extension of a Previously Existing Information Collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 118,796 responses per year.

Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately two to seven minutes (0.03 to 0.12 hours) to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate form or document, and submit the items in this collection to the USPTO.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 4,395.83 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hourly) Cost Burden: $293,993.33. The USPTO expects that 75% of the submission in this this collection will be prepared by financial administrators and that 25% will be prepared by paraprofessionals/paralegals. The mean hourly rate for financial administrator is $40.84 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment Statistics program (OES 15-1141). The mean hourly rate for paralegals is $145 according to the 2016 compensation survey by the National Association of Legal Assistants. Using those proportions and the estimated rates of $40.84 per hour for financial administrators and $145 per hour for paraprofessionals, the USPTO estimates that the average rate for all respondents will be approximately $66.88 per hour. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for submitting the information in this collection will be approximately $293,993.33 per year.

Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $112,725.00. There are no capital start-up, maintenance, or recordkeeping costs associated with this information collection. However, this collection does have annual (non-hour) cost burden in the form of service fees associated with deposit accounts and returned payments as well as postage costs. In addition to the fee information discussed here, information about the deposit account rules is available through the USPTO Web site at: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/deposit-account-rules-and-information

There are service fees for not maintaining the minimum balance required for the deposit account and for returned payments. There is a $25 service charge for deposit accounts that are below the minimum balance at the end of the month. The USPTO estimates that it assesses 3,600 of these low balance charges annually, for a total of $90,000 per year. There is also a $50 service charge for processing a payment refused (including a check returned “unpaid”) or charged back by a financial institution. The USPTO estimates that it assesses 128 of these returned payment charges annually, for a total of $6,400 per year. The total estimated service fees for this collection are $96,400 per year.

Customers may incur postage costs when submitting the Credit Card Payment Form and other paper forms or requests to the USPTO by mail. Customers generally send the Credit Card Payment Form to the USPTO along with other documents related to the fee or service being paid for by credit card, but some customers may submit just the Credit Card Payment Form without additional supporting documents. The USPTO estimates that roughly 5 percent of the 87,874 paper Credit Card Payment Forms submitted annually may be mailed in; approximately 4,394 per year. The USPTO estimates that it will receive an additional 28,922 mailed submissions per year, including Deposit Account Replenishments and Refund Requests, for a total of 33,316 mailed submissions per year. The USPTO estimates that the first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be $0.49, for a total postage cost of approximately $16,324.84 per year.

The total annual (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of service fees and postage costs is estimated to be approximately $112,724.84 per year.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will 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 practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) 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.

Title: Reparations Complaint, CFTC Form 30 (OMB Control No. 3038-XXXX). This is a request for approval of a new information collection.

Abstract: Pursuant to Section 14 of the Commodity Exchange Act, members of the public may apply to the Commission to seek damages against Commission registrants for alleged violations of the Act and/or Commission regulations. The legislative intent of the Reparations program was to provide a low-cost, speedy, and effective forum for the resolution of customer complaints and to sanction individuals and firms found to have violated the Act and/or any regulations.

In 1984, the Commission promulgated Part 12 of the Commission regulations to administer Section 14. Rule 12.13 provides the standards and procedures for filing a Reparations complaint. Specifically, subparagraph (b) describes the form and content requirements of a complaint. CFTC Form 30 mirrors the requirements set forth in subparagraph (b).

The Commission began utilizing Form 30 in or about 1984. The form was created to assist customers, who are typically pro se and non-lawyers. It was also designed as a way to provide proper notice to respondents of the charges against them. This form is critical to fulfilling this policy goal. Accordingly, the Commission is requesting an OMB control number to continue the use of Form 30.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981. See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on September 1, 2017 (82 FR 41614). The Commission did not receive any relevant comments on the 60-day notice.

Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

Respondents/Affected Entities: Commodity futures customers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 15.

Estimated Average Burden Hours per Respondent: 1.5.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 22.5.

Frequency of Collection: Once.

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

Title of Collection: Web-Based Quantitative Testing of Point of Sale/ATM (POS/ATM) Overdraft Disclosure Forms.

OMB Control Number: 3170-XXXX.

Type of Review: New Collection (Request for a New OMB Control Number).

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,000.

Abstract: The Bureau seeks approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to conduct online testing of ATM/debit card overdraft disclosures with 8,000 individuals. This study is being undertaken under the Bureau's authority under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), Public Law 111-203 and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), Public Law 95-630. The testing will explore consumer comprehension and decision-making in response to overdraft disclosure forms. It will also explore financial product usage, behavioral traits, and other consumer characteristics that may interact with a consumer's experiences with overdraft programs and related disclosure forms. The testing will be conducted with a sample of U.S. adults, with oversampling of respondents who have previously reported experience with overdraft fees.

Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The Historically Black Colleges and Universities Capital Financing Advisory Board's Statutory Authority and Function: The Historically Black Colleges and Universities Capital Financing Advisory Board (Board) is authorized by Title III, Part D, Section 347 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended in 1998 (20 U.S.C. 1066f). The Board is established within the Department of Education to provide advice and counsel to the Secretary and the designated bonding authority as to the most effective and efficient means of implementing construction financing on historically black college and university campuses and to advise Congress regarding the progress made in implementing the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Capital Financing Program (Program). Specifically, the Board will provide advice as to the capital needs of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, how those needs can be met through the Program, and what additional steps might be taken to improve the operation and implementation of the Program.

Meeting Agenda: The purpose of this meeting is to update the Board on current program activities, set future meeting dates, enable the Board to make recommendations to the Secretary on the current capital needs of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and discuss recommendations regarding how the Board might increase its effectiveness.

There will be an opportunity for public comment regarding the Board's activities on Saturday, December 2, 2017, 6:45 p.m.-7:15 p.m. Please be advised that comments cannot exceed five (5) minutes. Members of the public interested in submitting written comments may do so by submitting comments to the attention of Adam H. Kissel, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20202. Comments must be postmarked no later than Saturday, November 25, 2017, to be considered for discussion during the meeting. Comments should pertain to the work of the Board or the Program.

Access to Records of the Meeting: The official verbatim transcripts of the Board's public meeting will be made available for public inspection no later than 60 calendar days following a meeting.

Pursuant to the FACA, 5 U.S.C. App. as amended, Section 10(b), the public may also inspect meeting materials at http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hbcu-finance.html.

Reasonable Accommodations: The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify the contact person listed in this notice at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. We will attempt to meet a request received after that date, though, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to arrange it.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

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: Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) 109: Teachers' Use of Technology for School and Homework Assignments—Preliminary Activities.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0857.

Type of Review: A reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 3,100.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,161.

Abstract: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) requests OMB approval to conduct teacher list collection and district recruitment for the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) 109 survey on teachers' use of technology for school and homework assignments in public schools. NCES is conducting this FRSS survey as part of the IES response to the request in the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) to provide information about the educational impact of access to digital learning resources (DLRs) outside of the classroom. The expanding use of technology affects the lives of students both inside and outside the classroom. For this reason, the role of technology in education is an increasingly important area of research. While access to technology can provide valuable learning opportunities to students, technology by itself does not guarantee successful outcomes. Schools and teachers play an important role in successfully integrating technology into teaching and learning. Findings from the FRSS 109 study will provide insight on the types and availability of DLRs outside of the classroom, and will contribute to IES legislatively mandated report on the educational impact of access to DLRs outside the classroom. To provide the needed data, FRSS 109 will collect nationally representative data from public school teachers about their use of DLRs for teaching, and how their knowledge and beliefs about their students' access to DLRs outside the classroom affect the assignments they give. The survey will focus on information that can best be provided by teachers from their perspective and direct interaction with students. FRSS 109 will provide national statistics on: (1) Teachers' knowledge and beliefs about students' access to technology for doing school assignments outside of school; (2) Barriers and challenges teachers believe their students face in using technology for class assignments outside of school; and (3) Computers that the district or school may make available to students for use outside of class time. This request is for FRSS 109 preliminary activities, including securing research approval from special contact school districts beginning in April 2018 and obtaining teacher lists from sampled schools beginning in August 2018.

Background

The Forum provides a premier opportunity to learn about new applications for marine energy, and how emerging technologies capturing wave and tidal power can help meet the energy needs of a variety of industries. The Forum will bring together experts in marine energy and those from ocean industries who might benefit from local, reliable energy from waves and currents. Speakers will include MHK technology developers and researchers at the forefront of marine energy generation, representatives from industries and communities where marine energy can offer the greatest economic benefit, and government leaders and regulators.

Attendees will both discuss and evaluate high-potential alternate markets for developing marine-energy technologies as well as support DOE in aligning MHK technology R&D initiatives with high-priority opportunities. The event is divided into three days, with each day focusing on distinct topics: December 5th will focus on biofuels and aquaculture (Food and Fuel), December 6th will address the potential markets for subsea sensors, autonomous underwater vehicle recharging, and subsea data centers (Sensors and Data), and December 7th will conclude with desalination of seawater and seawater mineral extraction (Water and Minerals). Participating in these sessions provides attendees the chance to give feedback and input into which markets are best suited to the different marine energy technologies, and how devices can be designed and operated to maximize their benefits for each application. As a result of this forum, the WPTO will produce a report summarizing the opportunities within potential market areas. This is an opportunity for all attendees to provide feedback and input into which markets are best suited to the different marine energy technologies, and how devices can be designed and operated to maximize their benefits for each application.

The event is open to the public based upon space availability. DOE will also accept public comments as described above for purposes of better understanding the marine and hydrokinetic industry along with the alternative markets to be discussed at the Forum. These comments may be submitted at [email protected]. The expiration date for public comment is December 5.

Participants should limit information and comments to those based on personal experience, individual advice, information, or facts regarding this topic. It is not the object of this session to obtain any group position or consensus from the meeting participants.

Following the meeting, a summary will be compiled by DOE and posted for public comment. For those interested in providing additional public comment, the summary will be posted at water.energy.gov.

Background

This proposed settlement agreement is the result of voluntary disclosures of CWA, CAA, RCRA and EPCRA violations by EGPNA to the EPA. EGPNA is an electric energy producing company which specializes in producing clean energy from renewable sources (i.e., from hydro, solar, wind, geothermal and biomass sources) in lieu of carbon-based energy sources. EGPNA is incorporated in 1985 in the State of Massachusetts. EGPNA is located at 100 Brickstone Square, Ste 300, Andover, Massachusetts 01810.

On October 12, 2012, the EPA and Respondent entered into a corporate audit agreement pursuant to the Agency's policy on Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations (Audit Policy), 65 FR 19,618 (Apr. 11, 2000), in which Respondent agreed to conduct a systematic, documented, and objective review of its compliance with applicable provisions of the CWA, CAA, RCRA and EPCRA. Respondent agreed to submit a final audit report detailing the specific facilities assessed, information setting forth violations discovered, and corrective actions taken. Respondent ultimately audited a total of 77 facilities, as documented in Respondent's November 14, 2012 and final audit report and the March 7, 2013 supplemental audit report.

All violations discovered and disclosed by the Respondent are listed in Attachments A and B to the CAFO.

The EPA determined that Respondent satisfactorily completed its audit and has met all conditions set forth in the Audit Policy for the violations identified in Attachment A of the CAFO. Therefore, 100 percent of the gravity-based penalty calculated for the violations identified in Attachment A of the CAFO is being waived.

Attachment B of the CAFO identifies certain CWA violations that did not meet Condition V of the Audit Policy requiring correction of the violation within 60 days of discovery. For these violations, a gravity-based penalty of $22,373 is assessed.

For all violations listed in Attachments A and B, EPA calculated an economic benefit of noncompliance of $54,624. This number was calculated using specific cost information provided by Respondent and use of the Economic Benefit (BEN) computer model.

EGPNA has agreed to pay a total civil penalty of $76,997 for all the violations identified in Attachments A and B of the CAFO. Of this amount, $54,624 is the economic benefit of noncompliance and $22,373 is the gravity-based penalty for the violations listed in Attachment B of the CAFO.

Of this total amount, $633 is attributable to the CAA violations, $49,817 is attributable to the CWA NPDES violations, $23,946 is attributable to the CWA SPCC violations, $907 is attributable to the RCRA violations, and $1,664 is attributable to the EPCRA violations.

The EPA and Respondent negotiated the Consent Agreement in accordance with the Consolidated Rules of Practice, 40 CFR part 22, specifically 40 CFR 22.13(b) and 22.18(b) (In re: ENEL Green Power North America, Inc..; enforcement settlement identifier numbers CWA-HQ-2015-8003, RCRA-HQ-2015-8003, CAA-HQ-2015-8003 and EPCRA-HQ-2015-8003). This Consent Agreement is subject to public notice and comment under Section 311(b)(6)(C) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(C). The procedures by which the public may comment on a proposed CWA Class II penalty order, or participate in a Class II penalty proceeding, are set forth in 40 CFR 22.45. The deadline for submitting public comment on this proposed Final Order is [insert date 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]. All comments will be transferred to the EAB for consideration. The EAB's powers and duties are outlined in 40 CFR 22.4(a).

Respondent disclosed that it failed to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan in violation of CWA Section 311(j), 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), and the implementing regulations found at 40 CFR part 112, at eighteen (18) facilities located in Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia,, identified in Attachment A and listed below.

Under CWA Section 311(b)(6)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(A), any owner, operator, or person in charge of a vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility from which oil is discharged in violation of CWA Section 311(b)(3), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3), or who fails or refuses to comply with any regulations that have been issued under CWA Section 311(j), 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), may be assessed an administrative civil penalty of up to $177,500 by the EPA. Class II proceedings under CWA Section 311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6), are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22. As authorized by CWA Section 311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6), the EPA has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.

Pursuant to CWA Section 311(b)(6)(C), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(C), the EPA will not issue an order in this proceeding prior to the close of the public comment period.

Respondent disclosed that it violated CWA Sections 301(a), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a) and Section 402(a), 33 U.S.C. 1342(a) and implementing regulations found at 40 CFR part 122 at twenty-six (26) facilities located in Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and identified in Attachments A and B and listed below.

Under CWA Section 309(a) and (g)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1319(a) and (g)(2)(B), any person who is in violation of any condition or limitation which implements section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of this title in a permit issued by a State under an approved permit program under section 402 or 404 of this title may be assessed an administrative penalty of up to $177,500 by the EPA. Class II proceedings under CWA Section 309(g)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(2)(B), are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22. As authorized by CWA Section 309(g)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(2)(B), the EPA has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.

Respondent disclosed that it violated CAA Section 110, 42 U.S.C. 7410 and Nevada State Implementation Plan for operating under a Class II Air Quality Operating Permit that imposes emission limits, monitoring, testing, and reporting requirements for failing to maintain records or report significant losses of isobutane during routine maintenance. The facilities are located in the State of Nevada.

Under CAA Section 113(d), 42 U.S.C. 7413(d), the Administrator may issue an administrative penalty order to any person who has violated or is in violation of any applicable requirement or prohibition of the CAA, including any rule, order, waiver, permit, or plan. Proceedings under CAA Section 113(d), 42 U.S.C. 7413(d), are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22. The EPA, as authorized by the CAA, has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.

Respondent disclosed that it failed to comply with RCRA Section 3002 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6922, and the regulations found at 40 CFR part 265, 273, and 279, at sixty (60)) facilities listed in Attachment A of the CAFO when it failed to conduct waste accumulation and storage inspections; maintain proper universal waste disposal and handling practices for spent fluorescent lamps and tubes; and by failing to maintain waste oil in accordance with the regulations. These sixty (60) facilities are located in the following states: California, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina Vermont, Virginia and Washington, West Virginia.

Under RCRA Section 3008, 42 U.S.C. 6928, the Administrator may issue an order assessing a civil penalty for any past or current violation the RCRA. Proceedings under RCRA Section 3008, 42 U.S.C. 6928, are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22. The EPA, as authorized by the RCRA, has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.

Respondent disclosed that it violated EPCRA Section 302(c), 42 U.S.C. 11002(c), and the implementing regulations found at 40 CFR part 355, at three (3) facilities listed in Attachment A when it failed to notify the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and/or the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) that these facilities are subject to the requirements of Section 302(c) of EPCRA. These three (3) facilities are located in the following states: Kansas and New Hampshire.

Respondent disclosed that it violated EPCRA Section 311(a), 42 U.S.C. 11021(a), and the implementing regulations found at 40 CFR part 370, at three (3) facilities listed in Attachment A when it failed to submit a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for a hazardous chemical(s) and/or extremely hazardous substance(s) or, in the alternative, a list of such chemicals, to the LEPCs, SERCs, and the fire departments with jurisdiction over these facilities. These three (3) facilities are located in the following states: Kansas and New Hampshire.

Respondent disclosed that it violated EPCRA Section 312(a), 42 U.S.C. 11022(a), and the implementing regulations found at 40 CFR part 370, at three (3) facilities listed in Attachment A when it failed to prepare and submit emergency and chemical inventory forms to the LEPCs, SERCs, and the fire departments with jurisdiction over these facilities. These three (3) facilities are located in the following states: Kansas and New Hampshire.

Under EPCRA Section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, the Administrator may issue an administrative order assessing a civil penalty against any person who has violated applicable emergency planning or right-to-know requirements, or any other requirement of EPCRA. Proceedings under EPCRA Section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22. The EPA, as authorized by EPCRA Section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

The proposed settlement agreement would resolve the case filed by Veolia involving EPA Region 5's actions under the CAA title V operating permit program. On February 15, 2017, Veolia filed a petition with the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) challenging the CAA Title V renewal permit issued by EPA Region 5 on January 18, 2017 to Veolia's facility in Sauget, Illinois (“the Facility”).

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, among other changes to the permit, Veolia agrees to install activated carbon injection systems (“ACI systems”) on two of its incinerators to control emissions of vapor phase mercury and EPA Region 5 agrees to request a voluntary remand from the EAB of the CAA Title V renewal permit issued on January 18, 2017. If this proposed settlement agreement is finalized, EPA Region 5 will put out a draft CAA Title V permit for separate public notice and comment period. The revised draft CAA Title V renewal permit, which is attached to the proposed settlement agreement, also includes improvements to Veolia's procedures for analyzing hazardous wastes burned in the incinerators. If the final CAA Title V renewal permit for the Facility only contains changes from the revised draft that reflect the inclusion of any final preconstruction permit that has been issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for the ACI systems or clerical changes from the draft CAA Title V permit attached to the proposed settlement agreement, Veolia agrees that it will not file a petition for review with the EAB or otherwise challenge the final CAA Title V renewal permit for the Facility. The proposed settlement agreement provides that this public notice shall not serve as the notice and comment period for any subsequent draft CAA Title V renewal permit for the Facility. The proposed settlement agreement also provides that nothing in the settlement agreement limits the discretion of EPA Region 5 to make changes between the draft CAA Title V renewal permit and the final CAA Title V renewal permit based on public notice and comment or information contained in the permit record; nor does the settlement agreement limit or modify any discretion afforded EPA by the Act or by general principles of administrative law in taking those actions. See the proposed settlement agreement for specific details.

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

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2017-0630) contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, including the draft CAA Title V renewal permit. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

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

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

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

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

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

I. Comments

Instructions: FHFA seeks public comments on the proposed new system of records and will take all comments into consideration before issuing the final notice. See 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11). In addition to referencing “Comments/No. 2017-N-09,” please reference the title and number of the system of records your comment addresses: “Applicant Tracking System (FHFA-25).”

Posting and Public Availability of Comments: All comments received will be posted without change on the FHFA Web site at http://www.fhfa.gov, and will include any personal information provided, such as your name, address (home and email), telephone number, and any other information you provide. In addition, copies of all comments received will be available for examination by the public on business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. To make an appointment to inspect comments, please call the Office of General Counsel at (202) 649-3804.

This notice informs the public of FHFA's proposal to establish and maintain a new system of records. The proposed new system is being established under FHFA's authority at 12 U.S.C. 4517(h) to hire for mission critical occupation jobs such as examiners, accountants, economists, and specialists in financial markets and in technology. This notice satisfies the Privacy Act requirement that an agency publish a system of records notice in the Federal Register when there is an addition to the agency's systems of records. It has been recognized by Congress that application of all requirements of the Privacy Act to certain categories of records may have an undesirable and often unacceptable effect upon agencies in the conduct of necessary public business. Consequently, Congress established general exemptions and specific exemptions that could be used to exempt records from provisions of the Privacy Act. Congress also required that exempting records from provisions of the Privacy Act would require the head of an agency to publish a determination to exempt a record from the Privacy Act as a rule in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. The Director of FHFA has determined that records and information in this new system of records is not exempt from requirements of the Privacy Act.

As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), and pursuant to section 7 of OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” dated December 23, 2016 (81 FR 94424 (Dec. 23, 2016)), prior to publication of this notice, FHFA submitted a report describing the new system of records covered by this notice to the Office of Management and Budget, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.

The proposed new system of records described above is set forth in its entirety below.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. On July 11, 2017, the Commission published a notice and request for comments in the Federal Register (82 FR 31972) regarding the agency's request for continued approval from OMB for information collections as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Commission received no comments on any of the requests for extensions of OMB clearance. The Commission has submitted the described information collections to OMB for approval.

In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

Title: 46 CFR part 525—Marine Terminal Operator Schedules and Related Form FMC-1.

OMB Approval Number: 3072-0061 (Expires December 31, 2017).

Abstract: Section 8(f) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 40501(f), provides that a marine terminal operator (MTO) may make available to the public a schedule of its rates, regulations, and practices, including limitations of liability for cargo loss or damage, pertaining to receiving, delivering, handling, or storing property at its marine terminal. The Commission's rules governing MTO schedules are set forth at 46 CFR part 525.

Current Actions: There are no changes to this information collection, and it is being submitted for extension purposes only.

Type of Review: Extension.

Needs and Uses: The Commission uses information obtained from Form FMC-1 to determine the organization name, organization number, home office address, name and telephone number of the firm's representatives and the location of MTO schedules of rates, regulations and practices, and publisher, should the MTOs determine to make their schedules available to the public, as set forth in section 8(f) of the Shipping Act.

Frequency: This information is collected prior to an MTO's commencement of its marine terminal operations.

Type of Respondents: Persons operating as MTOs.

Number of Annual Respondents: The Commission estimates the respondent universe at 8, of which 5 opt to make their schedules available to the public.

Estimated Time Per Response: The time per response for completing Form FMC-1 averages 0.5 hours, and an estimated 5 hours for completing related MTO schedules.

Total Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the total hour burden at 44 hours.

Title: 46 CFR part 520—Carrier Automated Tariffs and Related Form FMC-1.

OMB Approval Number: 3072-0064 (Expires December 31, 2017).

Abstract: Except with respect to certain specified commodities, section 8(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 40501(a)-(c), requires that each common carrier and conference shall keep open to public inspection, in an automated tariff system, tariffs showing its rates, charges, classifications, rules, and practices between all ports and points on its own route and on any through transportation route that has been established. In addition, individual carriers or agreements among carriers are required to make available in tariff format certain enumerated essential terms of their service contracts. 46 U.S.C. 40502. The Commission is responsible for reviewing the accessibility and accuracy of automated tariff systems, in accordance with its regulations set forth at 46 CFR part 520.

Current Actions: There are no changes to this information collection, and it is being submitted for extension purposes only.

Type of Review: Extension.

Needs and Uses: The Commission uses information obtained from Form FMC-1 to ascertain the location of common carrier and conference tariff publications, and to access their provisions regarding rules, rates, charges and practices.

Frequency: This information is collected when common carriers or conferences publish tariffs.

Type of Respondents: Persons desiring to operate as common carriers or conferences.

Number of Annual Respondents: The Commission estimates there are 5,365 Carrier Automated Tariffs. It is estimated that the number of annual respondents will be 1,425.

Estimated Time Per Response: The time per response ranges from 0.1 to 2 hours for reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in the rules, and 0.5 hours for completing Form FMC-1.

Total Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the total hour burden at 2,408 hours.