Federal Register Vol. 82, No.31,

Title: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—Store Applications.

Form Number: FNS-252; 252-E; 252-FE; 252-R; 252-2; and 252-C.

OMB Number: 0584-0008.

Expiration Date: August 31, 2017.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection of information.

Abstract: Section 9(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, (the Act) (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) requires that FNS determine the eligibility of retail food stores and certain food service organizations to accept SNAP benefits and to monitor them for compliance and continued eligibility and to ensure Program integrity.

FNS is also responsible for requiring updates to application information and reviewing retail food store applications at least once every five years to ensure that each firm is under the same ownership and continues to meet eligibility requirements. The Act specifies that only those applicants whose participation will “effectuate the purposes of the program” should be authorized.

There are six forms associated with this approved Office of Management and Budget (OMB) information collection number 0584-0008—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Application for Stores, Forms FNS-252 (English and Spanish) and FNS-252-E (paper and online version respectively); Farmer's Market Application, Form FNS-252-FE; Meal Service Application, Form FNS-252-2; Reauthorization Application, Form FNS-252-R; and the Corporation Supplemental Application, Form FNS-252-C used for individual (chain) stores under a corporation. For new authorizations, the majority of applicants use form FNS-252 or FNS-252-E (paper or online, respectively). FNS is responsible for reviewing retail food store applications at least once every five years to ensure that each firm is under the same ownership and continues to meet eligibility guidelines. In order to accomplish this regulatory requirement, form FNS-252-R is used for reauthorization. In addition to these forms, during authorization or reauthorization, FNS may conduct an on-site store visit of the firm. The store visit of the firm helps FNS confirm that the information provided on the application is correct. An FNS representative or store visit contractor obtains permission to fill in the store visit checklist, photograph the store and asks the store owner or manager about the continued ownership of the store.

Applicants using form FNS-252-E or FNS-252-FE must also first self-register for a Level 1 access account through the USDA eAuthentication system in order to start an online application. USDA eAuthentication facilitates the electronic authentication of an individual.

The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) amended the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) to increase the requirement that certain SNAP authorized food stores have available on a continual basis at least three varieties of items in each of four staple food categories, to a mandatory minimum of seven varieties. The 2014 Farm Bill also amended the Act to increase, for certain SNAP authorized retail food stores, the minimum number of categories which perishable foods are required from two to three. Further, using existing authority in the Act and feedback from a Request for Information that was published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2013, FNS proposed some additional changes. Among other items, these proposed changes would address depth of stock, amend the definition of “staple foods”, and amend the definition of “retail food store” to clarify when a retailer is a restaurant rather than a retail food store. These changes were made in the final rule titled “Enhancing Retailer in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) which was published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2016 (81 FR 90675).

FNS seeks to renew the current information collection, and where appropriate, revise the information collection of all SNAP application forms (paper and electronic), in order to clarify and/or reword questions, instructions, and examples as a result of these regulatory changes required by the Act and amended by the Farm Bill. Such changes would include (1) revision to the Food Inventory section; (2) additional inventory stock examples of perishables and varieties of staple food items; (3) additional questions that ask whether the store has a Web site, whether optical scanners are used at the store, the name and address of the financial institution where SNAP deposits will be made, and whether the store offers any incentives or discounts to SNAP recipients; and (4) update assistance materials such as the General and Specific Instruction sections and on-line help screens.

FNS used FY 2016 data in our calculation of burden estimates associated with this information collection as this was the most complete data available to us at this time. Table A below clarifies the burden of this information collection.

The total burden hours associated with this information collection increased by approximately 2.33 minutes. The response time per respondent varies from 1 minute to 14.11 minutes. We estimate the new burden, on average, to be 6.34 minutes per respondent, an increase from 6.11 minutes. There is no recordkeeping burden associated with these forms.

Affected Public: Business for Profit; Retail food stores; Farmers' Markets.

Estimated Number of Respondents: The total estimated number of respondents is 127,597 annually.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: Respondents complete either 1 application form at initial authorization or 1 reauthorization application, as appropriate, for a total of 1 response each.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 127,597.

Estimated Time per Response: 6.34 minutes (0.109548). The estimated time response varies from 1 minute to 14.11 minutes depending on respondent group, as shown in the table below:

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-891-7634, conference ID: 4442689. 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 also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by February 24, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern 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, South Carolina Advisory Committee link http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=273. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Southern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

Agenda:

Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-208-1815; Conference ID: 6280737. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. 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 phone number.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-977-8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-208-1815, Conference ID: 6280737. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, April 10, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=238 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. These meetings are available to the public through the following toll-free call-in numbers listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. 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 also entitled to 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 Regional Programs Unit 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 Carolyn Allen at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit 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, Minnesota Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=256). Click on “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 Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Management Regulations (41 CFR 102-3.150), the notice for the February 17, 2017, meeting is given fewer than 15 calendar days prior to the first meeting date due to exceptional circumstance of the Committee's pending public hearing.

Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-946-0720; Conference ID: 6052239. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. 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 phone number.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-977-8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-946-0720, Conference ID: 6052239. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, April 10, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=264 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

This review covers three manufacturers or exporters of the subject merchandise: The Fangda Group,1 Fushun Jinly,2 and Jilin Carbon. On October 21, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results. 3 We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. No interested party submitted comments. The Department conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise covered by the order includes all small diameter graphite electrodes of any length, whether or not finished, of a kind used in furnaces, with a nominal or actual diameter of 400 millimeters (16 inches) or less, and whether or not attached to a graphite pin joining system or any other type of joining system or hardware. The merchandise covered by the order also includes graphite pin joining systems for small diameter graphite electrodes, of any length, whether or not finished, of a kind used in furnaces, and whether or not the graphite pin joining system is attached to, sold with, or sold separately from, the small diameter graphite electrode. Small diameter graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter graphite electrodes are most commonly used in primary melting, ladle metallurgy, and specialty furnace applications in industries including foundries, smelters, and steel refining operations. Small diameter graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter graphite electrodes that are subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8545.11.0010,4 3801.10,5 and 8545.11.0020.6 Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

The period of review is February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.

In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily determined that the Fangda Group, Fushun Jinly, and Jilin Carbon had no shipments during the POR.7 Consistent with the Department's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, we stated in the Preliminary Results that the Department would not rescind the review in these circumstances but, rather, would complete the review with respect to these three respondents and issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) based on the final results of the review. Following publication of the Preliminary Results, we received no comments from interested parties regarding these companies, nor did we receive information from CBP indicating that there were reviewable transactions from the three respondents during the POR. Because there are no changes from, or comments on, the Preliminary Results, the Department finds that there is no reason to modify its analysis. Therefore, we continue to find that Fangda Group, Fushun Jinly, and Jilin Carbon did not have reviewable transactions during the POR.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions for the respondents subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. The Department has determined that the Fangda Group, Fushun Jinly, and Jilin Carbon had no shipments of subject merchandise; therefore, pursuant to the Department's practice in non-market economy cases, any suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR from these companies will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.8

The following cash deposit requirements, which are currently in effect, will remain in effect for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 159.64 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied the non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

The MEP Advisory Board is authorized under Section 3003(d) of the America COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110-69), as amended by the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Improvement Act, Public Law 114-329 sec. 501 (2017), and codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(m), in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Hollings MEP Program (Program) is a unique program, consisting of centers in each state in the United States and Puerto Rico with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. The MEP Advisory Board provides the NIST Director with: (1) Advice on the activities, plans, and policies of the Program; (2) assessments of the soundness of the plans and strategies of the Program; and (3) assessments of current performance against the plans of the Program.

Background information on the MEP Advisory Board is available at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the MEP Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on Tuesday, March 7, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. This meeting will focus on several topics. The MEP Advisory Board will receive an update on Hollings MEP programmatic operations, as well as provide guidance and advice to Hollings MEP senior management on the drafting of the 2017-2022 Strategic Plan. The MEP Advisory Board will also provide input to Hollings MEP on developing protocols that will connect user facilities, research, and technologies at NIST and other federal laboratories with the help of the Hollings MEP national network to support small and mid-size manufacturers, and make recommendations on the establishment of a Hollings MEP Learning Organization. This encompasses an effort to strengthen connections by sharing best practices and building Working Groups and Communities of Practice for furtherance of the Hollings MEP Program's mission. The final agenda will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm.

Admittance Instructions: Anyone wishing to attend the MEP Advisory Board meeting must submit their name, email address and phone number to Cheryl Gendron ([email protected] or 301-975-2785) no later than Tuesday, February 28, 2017, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the MEP Advisory Board's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately 15 minutes will be reserved for public comments at the end of the meeting. Speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be no more than three to five minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the MEP Advisory Board, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, via fax at (301) 963-6556, or electronically by email to [email protected].

The March 7-13, 2017 meeting of the Pacific Council will be streamed live on the internet. The broadcasts begin initially at 9 a.m. Pacific Time (PT) Wednesday, March 8, 2017 and continue at 8 a.m. daily through Monday, March 13, 2017. Broadcasts end daily at 6 p.m. PT or when business for the day is complete. Only the audio portion and presentations displayed on the screen at the Pacific Council meeting will be broadcast. The audio portion is listen-only; you will be unable to speak to the Pacific Council via the broadcast. To access the meeting online please use the following link: http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar and enter the March Webinar ID, 897-986-459, and your email address. You can attend the Webinar online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone, using the GoToMeeting application. It is recommended that you use a computer headset to listen to the meeting, but you may use your telephone for the audio portion only of the meeting. The audio portion may be attended using a telephone by dialing the toll number 1-562-247-8422 (not a toll-free number), audio access code 862-846-290, and enter the audio pin shown after joining the Webinar.

The following items are on the Pacific Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order. Agenda items noted as “Final Action” refer to actions requiring the Council to transmit a proposed fishery management plan, proposed plan amendment, or proposed regulations to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, under sections 304 or 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Additional detail on agenda items, Council action, advisory entity meeting times, and meeting rooms are described in Agenda Item A.4, Proposed Council Meeting Agenda, and will be in the advance March 2017 briefing materials and posted on the Pacific Council Web site, at www.pcouncil.org no later than Friday, February 17, 2017.

Advisory body agendas will include discussions of relevant issues that are on the Pacific Council agenda for this meeting, and may also include issues that may be relevant to future Council meetings. Proposed advisory body agendas for this meeting will be available on the Pacific Council Web site http://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/council-meetings/current-briefing-book/ no later than Friday, February 17, 2017.

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

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt, at 503-820-2280, ext. 411 (see ADDRESSES) at least ten business days prior to the meeting date.

The agenda for the following five hearings and Webinar are as follows: Council staff will brief the public on the results of the gray triggerfish stock assessment and rebuilding status. Council staff will also provide an overview of the actions and alternatives considered in the amendment including the Council preferred alternatives. The Council is currently considering modifications to: The rebuilding time period, commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACLs) and annual catch targets (ACTs), recreational management measures including modifications to the fixed closed seasons, and bag limit and minimum size limits. The Council is also considering modifying the commercial trip limit while maintaining the current fixed closed season of June 1, 2017 through July 31, 2017. Staff and a Council member will be available to answer any questions and the public will have the opportunity to provide testimony on the amendment and other related testimony.

The schedule is as follows:

Monday, March 6, 2017; Hilton Garden Inn, 6717 S. Padre Island Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78412; telephone: (361) 991-8200; Five Rivers Delta Resource Center, 30945 Five Rivers Boulevard, Spanish Fort, AL 36527; telephone: (251) 625-0814.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017; Destin Community Center, 101 Stahlman Ave, Destin, FL 32541; telephone: (850) 654-5184; Courtyard by Marriott, 9550 Seawall Boulevard, Galveston, TX 77554; telephone: (409) 497-2850.

Thursday, March 9, 2017; Hilton St. Petersburg Carillon Park, 950 Lake Carillon Drive, St. Petersburg, FL 33716; telephone: (727) 540-0050.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017, Webinar will convene at 6 p.m., at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2003305067287307265.

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 business days prior to the meeting date.

Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

Background

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

An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

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

On August 15, 2016, NMFS received an application from the City for the taking of marine mammals incidental to the Kodiak transient float replacement project (Project) in Kodiak, Alaska. On October 17, 2016 NMFS received a revised application with updated take numbers. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on October 21, 2016. Subsequent to NMFS accepting the application, changes were made to the injury zones, take numbers, and shutdown zones. The City provided a memo to NMFS on November 1, 2016 noting these changes. This memo, along with the City's application, and other supporting documents can be found on our Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.

The City will conduct in-water construction work (i.e., pile driving and removal) that may incidentally harass marine mammals. The activity may occur between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017, with restrictions on impact driving between May 1, 2017 and June 30, 2017.

Activities included as part of the Project with the potential to take marine mammals include vibratory and impact pile-driving operations and use of a down-hole drill/hammer to install piles in bedrock. Take by Level B harassment of individuals of six species is anticipated to result from the specified activity.

On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. The transient float project used this new guidance when determining the injury (Level A) zones.

The City plans to replace its existing transient float located in Kodiak's Near Island Channel. The purpose of this project is to replace the transient float with one that meets modern standards for vessel mooring and public safety for the next 50 years. The existing float has structural issues due to failing walers, stringers, and bullrails. Due to these structural problems, the float's capacity has been reduced. The existing float needs to be replaced due to its poor condition and reduced capacity. The planned action includes in-water construction, including the removal of the existing timber float and its associated timber and steel piles, and installation of the replacement float and steel piles. The replacement float will be located within nearly the same footprint as the existing facility; however, the overall float length will be shortened to improve all around accessibility within City right-of-way limits. A detailed description of the planned Project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 79350; November 10, 2016). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned Project activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity.

Pile installation and extraction associated with the Project is scheduled to begin in January 2017 and end in March 2017. Pile installation and removal will take approximately 57 hours and is expected to take place over a period of 12 days (not necessarily consecutive days). To minimize impacts to pink salmon fry (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and coho salmon smolt (O. kisutch), all in-water pile extraction and installation is planned to be completed by April 30, 2016. However, if work cannot be completed by that date, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has recommended that the City refrain from impact pile installation from May 1 through June 30 within the 12-hour period beginning daily at the start of civil dawn (Marie 2015). If impact pile-driving occurs from May 1 through June 30, it will occur in the evenings during daylight hours, after the end of the 12-hour period that begins at civil dawn.

The 2.5-month long construction period accounts for the time required to mobilize materials and resources, remove and replace piles, remove the existing float, and install the new float, abutment, gangway, electrical components, and other safety features. The 2.5-month long construction period also accounts for potential delays in material deliveries, equipment maintenance, inclement weather, and shutdowns that could occur if marine mammals come within disturbance zones associated with the project area. However, the City has requested an authorization for up to one year of construction activities in case unforeseen construction delays occur.

Pile extraction, pile driving, and drilling will occur intermittently over the work period, from minutes to hours at a time (Table 1 in the City's application). The planned transient float replacement project will require an estimated 12 days total of pile extraction and installation, including eight hours of vibratory extraction and installation, 48 hours of down-hole drilling, and less than one hour of impact hammering. Timing will vary based on the weather, delays, substrate type (the rock is layered and is of varying hardness across the site, so some holes will be drilled quickly and others may take longer), and other factors.

The Kodiak transient float is located in the City of Kodiak, Alaska, at 57.788162° N. −152.400287° W., in Near Island Channel in the Gulf of Alaska (See Figures 1-3 in the City's Application). The transient float provides moorage for vessels from villages as well as from the commercial fishing fleet located in Near Island Channel, which separates downtown Kodiak from Near Island (Figure 1-2 in the City's application). The channel is approximately 200 meters (m) (656 feet (ft)) wide and 15 m (50 ft) deep in the project area. In the project footprint, the shoreline along the Transient Float is heavily armored with riprap (see Figure 4 of the City's application) and impervious surfaces directly abut the shoreline adjacent to the float. The channel is located within Chiniak Bay which opens to the Gulf of Alaska.

The project is located in a busy industrial area (Figure 3 of the City's application). Channel Side Services' seafood packing facility is located approximately 25 m (82 ft) east of the float and Petro Marine Services floating fuel dock is located approximately 20 m (66 ft) west of the float. Pier 1, the Alaska Marine Highway Ferry dock, is located 100 m (328 ft) southwest of the float and Trident Seafood's shore-based seafood processing plant is located approximately 175 m (574 ft) to the southwest (See Figure 3 in the City's application). When in operation, Trident's plant receives numerous commercial fishing vessels daily for offloading and processing of catch.

The planned action for this IHA request includes in-water construction, including the removal of the existing timber float and its associated steel piles (19 12-inch steel piles), and installation of the replacement float and steel piles (12 24-inch steel piles). The replacement float will be located within nearly the same footprint as the existing facility; however, the overall float length will be shortened to improve all around accessibility within City right-of-way limits. The planned transient float project will require an estimated 58 hours over 12 days total of pile extraction and installation, including approximately eight hours of vibratory extraction and installation, 48 hours of down-hole drilling, and less than one hour of impact hammering. In water construction activities are expected to occur over 2.5 months.

While work is conducted in the water, anchored barges will be used to stage construction materials and equipment. The existing piles, fixed pier, float and gangway will be removed and disposed of properly and the new float will be installed.

It is estimated that it will take 10 minutes of vibratory pile-driving and 4 hours of down-hole drilling per pile for installation, and 20 minutes of vibratory pile-driving per pile for extraction. For the installation of 12 piles, this is an estimated 2 hours of total time using active vibratory equipment and 48 hours of total time using down-hole drilling. For the in-water extraction of 19 piles, this is an estimated 6.33 hours of total time using active vibratory equipment. Two piles will remain in place, and two piles to be removed are above the high tide line. No temporary piles are associated with this project.

The 24-inch steel piles will be driven 3-4.6 m (10-15 ft) through sediment and drilled another 3 m (10 ft) into bedrock. The sequence for installing the 24-inch piles will begin with insertion through overlying sediment with a vibratory hammer for about eight minutes per pile. Next, a hole will be drilled in the underlying bedrock by using a down-hole drill. A down-hole drill is a drill bit that drills through the sediment and a pulse mechanism that functions at the bottom of the hole, using a pulsing bit to break up the harder materials or rock to allow removal of the fragments and insertion of the pile. The head extends so that the drilling takes place below the pile. Drill cuttings are expelled from the top of the pile as dust or mud. It is estimated that drilling piles through the layered bedrock will take about four hours per pile. Finally, the vibratory hammer will be used again to finish driving the piles into bedrock, for approximately two minutes per pile (Table 1).

Although impact pile-driving is not expected for this project, the contractor may choose to impact proof the piles after down-hole drilling. In this case, two to five blows of an impact hammer will be used to confirm that piles are set into bedrock, for an expected maximum time of three minutes of impact hammering per pile. When the impact hammer is employed for proofing, a pile cap or cushion will be placed between the impact hammer and the pile.

A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the City was published in the Federal Register on November 10, 2016 (81 FR 79350). That notice described, in detail, the City's activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission. The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS issue the IHA, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.

Marine waters near Kodiak Island support many species of marine mammals, including pinnipeds and cetaceans; however, the number of species regularly occurring near the project area is limited. Steller sea lions (Eumatopias jubatus) are the most common marine mammals in the project area and are part of the western Distinct Population Segment (wDPS) that is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), killer whales (Orcinus orca), and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) may also occur in the project area, especially in the waters between Near Island Channel and Woody Island, but far less frequently and in lower abundance than Steller sea lions. Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) and grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus) occur in the nearshore waters around Kodiak Island, but are not expected to be found near the project area because of the narrow channel and high level of boat traffic. The relatively large numbers of Steller sea lions in the area may serve as an additional deterrent for some marine mammals. Table 2 provides information about the species that are potentially present in the project area. Steller sea lion, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, killer whale, and humpback whale, are the species that regularly occur or that may occur in the project area. A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the Project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 79350; November 10, 2016). Since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/) for generalized species accounts.

The effects of underwater noise from construction activities for the Project have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 79350; November 10, 2016) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals, therefore that information is not repeated here; please refer to the Federal Register notice for that information.”

The primary impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory and impact pile driving and removal in the area, and down-hole drilling. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible. The Project would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, such as haulout sites, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources and minor impacts to the immediate substrate during installation and removal of piles during the Project. These potential effects are discussed in detail in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 79350; November 10, 2016), therefore that information is not repeated here; please refer to that Federal Register notice for that information.

In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses.

For the Project, the City worked with NMFS on the following mitigation measures to minimize the impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity. The primary purposes of these mitigation measures are to minimize sound levels from the activities, and to monitor marine mammals within designated zones of influence corresponding to NMFS' current Level A and B harassment thresholds. The Level B zones are depicted in Table 5 found later in the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section.

Observer Qualifications—Monitoring will be conducted before, during, and after pile driving and removal activities. Monitoring will be conducted by a minimum of two qualified marine mammal observers (MMOs), who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. NMFS has minimum requirements for MMOs at the construction site, as well as specific qualifications (e.g. experience) needed of each MMO. MMO requirements for construction actions are as follows:

1. Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel) are required.

2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer.

3. Other observers (that do not have prior experience) may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience.

4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer.

5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.

Qualified MMOs are trained biologists, and need the following additional minimum qualifications:

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

(b) Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols

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

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

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

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

Monitoring Protocols—The City will conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and City staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.

Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for 30 minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own volition) and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The shutdown zone may only be declared clear, and pile driving started, when the entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, etc.).

If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 30 minutes have passed without re-detection of large cetaceans (e.g. killer whales, humpback whales) or 15 minutes for small cetaceans (e.g. Dall's and harbor porpoise) and pinnipeds. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive a pile, through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activities. Pile driving activities include the time to remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.

Observers will record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven. Observations made outside the shutdown zone will not result in shutdown; that pile segment will be completed without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, at which point all pile driving activities will be halted, as described below. Please see Appendix B of the City's application for details on the marine mammal monitoring plan developed by the City with NMFS' cooperation.

Ramp Up or Soft Start—The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave the area prior to the impact hammer operating at full capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy for any given hammer because of variation across drivers. The project will utilize soft start techniques for all impact pile driving. NMFS will require the City to initiate sound from impact driving with an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of pile driving of 30 minutes or longer.

If a marine mammal is present within the Level A harassment zone, ramping up will be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the Level A harassment zone. Activity will begin only after the MMO has determined, through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the Level A harassment zone.

If a Steller sea lion, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, humpback whale, or killer whale is present in the Level B harassment zone, ramping up will begin and a Level B take will be documented. Ramping up will occur when these species are in the Level B harassment zone whether they entered the Level B zone from the Level A zone, or from outside the project area.

If any marine mammal other than Steller sea lions, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, Dall's porpoise, humpback whale, or killer whales is present in the Level B harassment zone, ramping up will be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the zone. Ramping up will begin only after the MMO has determined, through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the harassment zone.

Pile Caps—Pile caps or cushions will be used during all impact pile-driving activities.

Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving activities, the City will establish a shutdown zone. Shutdown zones are intended to contain the area in which sound pressure levels (SPL) equal or exceed acoustic injury criteria, with the purpose being to define an area within which shutdown of activity will occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus preventing injury of marine mammals. Using the user spreadsheet for the new acoustic guidance, injury zones were determined for each of the hearing groups. These zones will be rounded to the nearest 10 or 100 m to be more conservative (Table 3). Isopleths for impact driving have been updated from the proposed IHA due to changes in the values used in the user spreadsheet (pulse duration changed from 0.05 to 0.1, and the duration was changed from hours per day to number of piles per day). As a precautionary measure, intended to reduce the unlikely possibility of injury from direct physical interaction with construction operations, the City will implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius around each pile for all construction methods for all marine mammals. Additionally, to avoid acoustic injury, the following shutdown zones will be in place for all construction methods (vibratory extraction and installation, down-hole drilling, and impact driving): 100m for humpback whales, harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise, 50 m for harbor seals, and 10 m for killer whales and Steller sea lions (Table 3).

For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (using, e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or clamshell equipment used to place or remove material), if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions.

Disturbance Zone—Disturbance zones are the areas in which SPLs equal or exceed 120 decibels (dB) root mean square (rms) (for continuous sound) and 160 dB rms (for impulsive sound) for pile driving installation and removal. Disturbance zones provide utility for monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. The disturbance zone will be monitored by appropriately stationed MMOs. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area but outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of activity. However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone monitoring is for documenting incidents of Level B harassment.

Any marine mammal documented within the Level B harassment zone will constitute a Level B take (harassment), and will be recorded and reported as such. Nominal radial distances for disturbance zones are shown in Table 4. Given the size of the disturbance zone for down-hole drilling, it is impossible to guarantee that all animals will be observed or to make comprehensive observations of fine-scale behavioral reactions to sound, and only a portion of the zone (e.g., what may be reasonably observed by visual observers) will be observed.

In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven or removed, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile. It may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed to sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the basis of predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing of observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed incidences of harassment created. This information may then be used to extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of actual total takes.

Level B take of grey whales and fin whales is not requested and will be avoided by shutting down before individuals of these species enter the Level B zones.

Time Restrictions—Work will occur only during daylight hours when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted. To minimize impacts to pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) fry and coho salmon (O. kisutch) smolt, the City will observe time restrictions on impact pile driving from May 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017. If impact pile-driving occurs from May 1 through June 30, it will occur in the evenings during daylight hours, after the 12-hour period that begins at civil dawn.

Mitigation measures to ensure availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses are discussed later in this document (see Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses section).

NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of the mitigation measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammal species or stocks;

• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and

• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:

1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of pile driving and down-hole drilling, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals will be exposed to received levels of pile driving and down-hole drilling, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of pile driving and down-hole drilling, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's mitigation measures and other measures considered by NMFS, we have determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. The City submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found in Appendix B of their application.

Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:

1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;

2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving and down-hole drilling that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS), or Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS);

3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:

Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;

4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and

5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

The City will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All MMOs will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. As discussed previously, the City will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, during, and after pile driving. The MMOs and the City authorities will meet to determine the most appropriate observation platform(s) for monitoring during pile installation and extraction.

Based on our MMO requirements, the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan will implement similar procedures as those described in the Mitigation Measures section.

We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, the City will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the City will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:

• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;

• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;

• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;

• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;

• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and

• Other human activity in the area.

The City will provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the construction work. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving days, and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A final report must be submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as serious injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), the City will immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Stranding Coordinator. The report will include the following information:

• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

• Name and type of vessel involved;

• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;

• Description of the incident;

• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Water depth;

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

• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

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

• Fate of the animal(s); and

• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

Activities will not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with the City to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The City will not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), the City will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Stranding Coordinator.

The report will include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities will be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with the City to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), the City will report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS West Coast Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. The City will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

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

All anticipated takes will be by Level B harassment resulting from vibratory pile driving and removal, impact pile driving, or down-hole drilling. Level B harassment may result in temporary changes in behavior. Note that injury, serious injury, and lethal takes are not expected, and are not authorized, for these activities due to the mitigation and monitoring measures that are expected to minimize the possibility of such take.

If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007). Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound, in order to estimate take.

Upland work can generate airborne sound and create visual disturbance that could potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals (specifically, pinnipeds) that are hauled out or at the water's surface with heads above the water. However, because there are no regular haul-outs in close proximity to the Kodiak transient float, NMFS believes that incidents of incidental take resulting from airborne sound or visual disturbance are unlikely.

The City has requested authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers, by Level B harassment, of harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, killer whale, humpback whale, Steller sea lion, and harbor seal near the project area that may result from impact and vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and down-hole drilling construction activities associated with the transient float project.

The calculation for estimating marine mammal exposures to underwater noise is:

In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider the sound field in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidences of take.

We use the following generic sound exposure thresholds (Table 5) to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by behavioral harassment (Level B) might occur.

We use NMFS' new acoustic criteria (NMFS 2016a, 81 FR 51694; August 4, 2016) to determine sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by injury, in the form of PTS, might occur.

The sound field in the project area is the existing ambient noise plus additional construction noise from the Project. The primary components of the project expected to affect marine mammals is the sound generated by impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and down-hole drilling.

After vibratory hammering has installed the pile through the overburden to the top of the bedrock layer, the vibratory hammer will be removed, and the down-hole drill will be inserted through the pile. The head extends below the pile and the drill rotates through soils and rock. The drilling/hammering takes place below the sediment layer and, as the drill advances, below the bedrock layer as well. Underwater noise levels are relatively low because the impact is taking place below the substrate rather than at the top of the piling, which limits transmission of noise through the water column. Additionally, there is a drive shoe welded on the bottom of the pile, and the upper portion of the bit rests on the shoe, which aids in advancement of the pile as drilling progresses. When the proper depth is achieved, the drill is retracted and the pile is left in place. Impact hammering typically generates the loudest noise associated with pile driving, but for the transient float project, use will be limited to a few blows per 24-inch steel pile.

Several factors are expected to minimize the potential impacts of pile-driving and drilling noise associated with the project:

Sound will dissipate relatively rapidly in the shallow waters over soft seafloors in the project area (NMFS 2013). St. Herman Harbor (Figure 2 in the application), where the Dog Bay float is located, is protected from the transient float construction noise by land projections and islands, which will block and redirect sound. Near Island and Kodiak Island, on either side of Near Island Channel, prevent the sound from travelling underwater to the north, south, and southeast, restricting the noise to most of the channel; however a narrow band of noise may extend to Woody Island, approximately 3.75 kilometers (km) to the East.

The project includes vibratory removal of 12-inch timber and steel piles; and vibratory installation and down-hole drilling of permanent 24-inch steel piles. Each 24-inch pile may also be subject to a few blows from an impact hammer for proofing. No data are available for vibratory removal of piles, so it will be conservatively assumed that vibratory removal of piles will produce the same source level as vibratory installation.

SPLs for this project were used from the nearby Pier 1 Kodiak ferry terminal measurements of 24-in steel piles from JASCO 2016 (Warner and Austin 2016). The ferry terminal is approximately 100 m from the transient float, and therefore has similar environmental conditions, and the project used the same installation methods and same size piles, making this a good proxy. Vibratory driving had a measured source level (SL) of 183.8 dB rms at one meter. Down-hole drilling had a measured SL of 192.5 dB at one meter. Impact pile driving had a measured SL of 205.9 at one meter.

Underwater Sound Propagation Formula—Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

NMFS typically recommends a default practical spreading loss of 15 dB per tenfold increase in distance. However, for this analysis for the transient float project area, a TL of 21.9Log(R/10) (i.e., 21.9-dB loss per tenfold increase in distance) was used for vibratory pile driving, 18.9Log(R/10) was used for down-hole drilling, and a 20.3Log TL(R/10) function was used for impact driving (Warner and Austin, 2016). TL values were based on measured attenuation rates at the Pier 1, Kodiak Ferry Terminal, located approximately 100m away from the transient float project area.

Distances to the harassment isopleths vary by marine mammal type and pile extraction/driving tool. The isopleth for Level A harassment are summarized in Table 3, and the isopleths for Level B harassment are summarized in Table 4. The Zone of Influence ZOIs will be rounded up to the nearest 10, 100, or 1,000 meters for the transient float project.

Note that the actual area ensonified by pile driving activities is significantly constrained by local topography relative to the total threshold radius. The actual ensonified area was determined using a straight line-of-sight projection from the anticipated pile driving locations. Distances to the underwater sound isopleths for Level A and Level B harassment zones are illustrated respectively in Figures 15-17 in the City's application.

The method used for calculating potential exposures to impact and vibratory pile driving noise for each threshold was estimated using local marine mammal data sets, monitoring reports from previous projects in the same vicinity, best professional judgment from state and federal agencies, and data from take estimates on similar projects with similar actions. All estimates are conservative and include the following assumptions:

• All pilings installed at each site will have an underwater noise disturbance equal to the piling that causes the greatest noise disturbance (i.e., the piling farthest from shore) installed with the method that has the largest ZOI. The largest underwater disturbance ZOI would be produced by down-hole drilling. The ZOIs for each threshold are not spherical and are truncated by land masses on either side of the channel which will dissipate sound pressure waves.

• Exposures were based on estimated work hours. Numbers of days were based on an average production rate of eight hours of vibratory driving/extraction, 48 hours of down-hole drilling, and less than one hour of impact driving. Note that impact driving is likely to occur only on days when vibratory driving occurs.

• In absence of site specific underwater acoustic propagation modeling, the practical spreading loss model was used to determine the ZOI.

Steller sea lions are common in the project area and may be encountered daily. Pinniped population estimates are typically made when the animals are hauled out and available to be counted. There have been numerous counts of Steller sea lions in this area over the past few years. Aerial surveys from 2004 through 2006 indicated peak winter (October-April) counts at the Dog Bay float ranging from 27 to 33 animals (Wynne et al., 2011). More than 100 Steller sea lions were counted on the Dog Bay float at times in spring 2015, although the mean number was much smaller (Wynne 2015b). Counts in February 2015 during a site visit by biologists ranged from approximately 28 to 45 Steller sea lions. According to ABR (2016), however, maximal weekly counts of sea lions at Dog Bay float were only loosely correlated with weekly average-hourly rates of sea lion observations within the construction area. Near Island Channel counts of Steller sea lions adjacent to Pier 1 have ranged from zero to approximately 25 sea lions at one time (FHWA and DOT&PF 2015). More recent counts completed between November 2015 and June 2016 by protected species observers (PSOs) working on the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project (approximately 100 m from the transient float) ranged from approximately 6 to 114 Steller sea lions, with an average of 33 (ABR 2016). It has been estimated that about 40 unique individual sea lions likely pass by the project site each day (Speckman 2015; Ward 2015; Wynne 2015a). Incidental take was estimated for Steller sea lions by conservatively assuming that, within any given day, approximately 40 unique individual Steller sea lions may be present at some time during that day within the Level B harassment zones during active pile extraction or installation.

It is assumed that Steller sea lions may be present every day, and also that take will include multiple harassments of the same individual(s) both within and among days, which means that these estimates are likely an overestimate of the number of individuals.

An estimated total of 480 Steller sea lions (40 sea lions / day * 12 days of pile installation or extraction) could be exposed to noise at the Level B harassment level during vibratory and impact pile driving (Table 6).

The attraction of sea lions to the seafood processing plant increases the possibility of individual Steller sea lions occasionally entering the Level A harassment zone (the largest injury zone is 5.5 m during down-hole drilling); however a minimum 10 m shutdown will be in effect for all construction methods, thereby eliminating the potential for Level A harassment. No Level A take is authorized for Steller sea lions.

Harbor seals are expected to be encountered in low numbers within the project area. However, based on the known range of the South Kodiak stock, 13 single sightings during 110 days of monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project, and occasional sightings during monitoring of projects at other locations on Kodiak Island, it is assumed that harbor seals could be present every day. This analysis conservatively assumes that harbor seals could be present on any one day during the 12 days of pile installation and removal. Using this number, it is estimated that 48 harbor seals could be exposed to noise at the Level B harassment level during in-water construction activities (Table 6). We assumed three harbor seals (the maximum number of seals observed during the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project over 110 days of monitoring) may be seen in Near Island Channel for 36 takes, and included an additional one seal per day that may be present in the larger 120 dB zone for an additional 12 seals.

The shutdown zone for harbor seals is 50 m for all construction methods. Because this shutdown zone covers the entire injury zone (10 m for impact and vibratory, and 50 m for down-hole drilling), Level A harassment can be avoided. No Level A take is authorized for harbor seals.

Harbor porpoises are expected to be encountered in low numbers within the project area. Based on the known range of the Gulf of Alaska stock, 6 sightings of singles or pairs only during 110 days of monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements project, and occasional sightings during monitoring of projects at other locations on Kodiak Island, it is assumed that harbor porpoises could be present every day. Dahlheim (2009, 2015) states that the average group size of harbor porpoise is between one and two individuals. To be conservative, we assumed groups of two animals may be seen on any given day. NMFS will authorize 24 Level B takes (two animals on 12 days) of harbor porpoises by exposure to underwater noise over the duration of construction activities (Table 6).

A shutdown zone of 100 m will be established for all construction methods for harbor porpoise. The largest injury zone is 64.6 m (rounded to 100 m) for this species; therefore, level A take can be avoided. No Level A take is authorized for harbor porpoise.

Dall's porpoises are expected to be encountered within the project area rarely. Although no sightings of Dall's porpoise occurred during 110 days monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project, the project area is within the known range of the Gulf of Alaska stock and they have been observed at other locations on Kodiak Island. This project also includes a narrow band that will be ensonified extending to Woody Island, where Dall's porpoise may be present. There is minimal information on group sizes of this species in the Kodiak area. Dahlheim (2009) noted mean group size of Dall's porpoise in Southeast Alaska between the spring and fall of 1991-2007 ranged from 2.51 to 5.46 animals, with average group sizes between 2.77 and 3.55. OBIS SEAMAP states that Dall's porpoise usually form small groups between 2 and 12 individuals, and had two observations of Dall's porpoise near Kodiak Island with group sizes of one and two individuals (Halpin 2009 at OBIS-SEAMAP 2016). We therefore, conservatively, assume that Dall's porpoises with an average group size of seven individuals could be present in the area every other day of in-water construction. NMFS will authorize 42 Dall's porpoise level B takes (7 animal / day * 6 days of pile activity).

No Level A takes are requested for this species. No Level A take is expected since Dall's porpoise are uncommon in the area, preferring deeper waters, and there will be a 100 m shutdown for all construction methods for Dall's porpoise to further reduce the likelihood of injury.

Killer whales are expected to be in the Kodiak harbor area sporadically from January through April and to enter the project area in low numbers. Four killer whale pods were observed during 110 days of monitoring for the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project with the largest pod size of 7 individuals. NMFS estimates that a pod of 7 individual whales may enter the project area on half of the days during the 12 days of pile installation and removal. NMFS therefore will authorize 42 Level B takes (7 killer whales / visit * 6 days) of killer whales by exposure to underwater noise over the duration of construction activities. This increased from the proposed IHA after reconsideration of how often this species may be in the action area, which may be more often than suggested in the proposed IHA. No Level A take is requested under this authorization, since the injury zones are very small (10 m for all methods), and it is unlikely a killer whale will come that close to the piles. NMFS also expects that construction could be shut down before the whales enter the Level A harassment area.

Humpback whales are rare in the action area. One solitary animal was observed in March 2016 during 110 days monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project. Conservatively, it assumed that one individual could be present in the area on half of the days of in-water construction. NMFS will therefore authorize six Level B takes (Table 6). Because humpback whales are rare in the area, and there will be a 100 m shutdown in place that covers the injury zones (10 m for impact and vibratory, and 100 m for down-hole drilling), no Level A takes are authorized for this species.

Based on Wade et al. (2016), the probability is that five of the humpback whales that would be taken through Level B acoustic harassment would be from the Hawaii DPS (not listed under ESA), one humpback whale would be from threatened Mexico DPS, and no humpback whales would be from the endangered Western North Pacific DPS.

Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken,” NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status of the species.

To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 6, given that the anticipated effects of this pile driving project on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity, else species-specific factors would be identified and analyzed.

Pile extraction, pile driving, and down-hole drilling activities associated with the reconstruction of the transient float, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and drilling. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when in-water construction is under way.

The takes from Level B harassment will be due to potential behavioral disturbance. No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of serious injury to marine mammals. These noise exposures may cause behavioral modification to a small number of each affected marine mammal species. However, the City's activities are fairly localized and of short duration, and the noise exposures are therefore expected to be localized and short-term. The entire project area is limited to the transient float area and its immediate surroundings with only a small band extending out to Woody Island. Actions covered under the Authorization include extracting 19 12-inch steel piles and installing 12 24-inch steel piles to support the replacement float and gangway. Specifically, the use of impact driving will be limited to an estimated maximum of one hour over the course of 12 days of construction, and will likely require less time. Each 24-inch pile will require about two to five blows of an impact hammer to confirm that piles are set into bedrock for a maximum time expected of three minutes of impact hammering per pile. Vibratory driving will be necessary for an estimated maximum of eight hours and down-hole drilling will require a maximum of 48 hours. The likelihood that marine mammals will be detected by trained observers is high under the environmental conditions described for the reconstruction of the transient float. Therefore, the mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to reduce the likelihood of injury and behavior exposures.

No important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be near the action area. The project activities will not modify existing marine mammal habitat, nor will they result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat designated for any threatened or endangered species. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.

Sea lions are common in the Kodiak harbor area, and the possibility exists that some of these sea lions are already hearing-impaired or deaf (Wynne 2014). Fishermen have been known to protect their gear and catches by using “seal bombs” in an effort to disperse sea lions away from fishing gear. The use of seal bombs requires appropriate permits from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Sound levels produced by seal bombs are well above levels that are known to cause TTS (temporary loss of hearing), and PTS (partial or full loss of hearing) in marine mammals (Wynne 2014).

Sea lions in the Kodiak harbor area are habituated to fishing vessels and are skilled at gaining access to fish. It is likely that some of the same animals follow local vessels to the nearby fishing grounds and back to town. It is possible that these sea lions are also hearing-impaired or deaf due to seal bombs, although no studies have been published to confirm this. It is not known how a hearing-impaired or deaf sea lion would respond to typical mitigation efforts at a construction site such as ramping up of pile-driving equipment. It is also unknown whether a hearing-impaired or deaf sea lion would avoid pile-driving activity, or whether such an animal might approach closely, without responding to or being impacted by the noise level. However, there will be a minimum 10 m shutdown for all pile driving, to avoid additional exposure.

Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, individuals will simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only in association with impact pile driving. In response to vibratory driving, pinnipeds (which may become somewhat habituated to human activity in industrial or urban waterways) have been observed to orient towards and sometimes move towards the sound. The pile extraction and driving activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than, numerous construction activities conducted in other similar locations, including the nearby Pier 1 Kodiak ferry terminal (approximately 100 m away), which have taken place with no reported injuries or mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse consequences from behavioral harassment. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness for the affected individuals, and thus will not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole.

In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of non-auditory injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the short duration of in-water construction activities (12 days), and; (4) the presumed efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.

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

Table 7 presents the number of animals that could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level B harassment for the work at the transient float project site. Our analysis shows that between <1 percent—7.16 percent of the populations of affected stocks that could be taken by harassment. Therefore, the numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species are considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual—an extremely unlikely scenario. For pinnipeds, especially Steller sea lions, occurring in the vicinity of the transient float, there will almost certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day, and these takes are likely to occur only within some small portion of the overall regional stock.

Based on the analysis contained herein NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

Alaska Natives have traditionally harvested subsistence resources in the Kodiak area for many hundreds of years, particularly Steller sea lions and harbor seals. No traditional subsistence hunting areas are within the project vicinity, however; the nearest haulouts and rookeries for Steller sea lions and harbor seals are the Long Island, Cape Chiniak, and Ugak Island haul-outs and the Marmot Island rookery, many miles away. These locations are, respectively 4, 13, 25 and 28 nautical miles distant from the project area. Since all project activities will take place within the immediate vicinity of the transient float site, the project will not have an adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence use at locations farther away. No disturbance or displacement of sea lions or harbor seals from traditional hunting areas by activities associated with the transient project is expected. No changes to availability of subsistence resources will result from transient float replacement project activities.

The City contacted the Alaska Harbor Seal Commission and the Steller sea lion Commission. Neither Commission had concerns about the impacts of this activity on native Alaska subsistence hunts.

There are two marine mammal species that are listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the study area: The western North Pacific (WNP) DPS and Mexico DPS of humpback whale and the western DPS of Steller sea lion. The project location is also within critical habitat of two major Steller sea lion haulouts closest to the project area: Long Island and Cape Chiniak, which are approximately 4.6 nautical miles (8.5 kilometers) and 13.8 nautical miles (25.6 kilometers) away from the project site, respectively. There are no rookeries within 20 miles of the project location. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office Protected Resources Division issued a Biological Opinion on February 7, 2017 under Section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to the City under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS Permits and Conservation Division. The Biological Opinion concluded that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of western DPS Steller sea lions or the Mexico DPSs of humpback whales, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify western DPS Steller sea lion critical habitat.

NMFS prepared an EA and analyzed the potential impacts to marine mammals that would result from the City's construction project. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed in February 2017. A copy of the EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

The USPTO is required by Title 35 of the United States Code, including 35 U.S.C. 131, to examine applications for patents. The USPTO administers the patent statutes through various rules in Chapter 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, including 37 CFR 1.16 through 1.84. Each patent applicant must provide sufficient information to allow the USPTO to properly examine the application to determine whether it meets the criteria set forth in the patent statues and regulations for issuance as a patent. For example, the patent statutes and regulations require that an application for patent include the following information:

The following types of patent applications are covered under the present information collection:

In addition, the present collection covers petitions to accept an unintentionally delayed priority or benefit claim, petitions under 37 CFR 1.47 (pre-Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)) to accept a filing by other than all of the inventors or a person not the inventor, petitions under 37 CFR 1.6(g) to accord an application under 37 CFR 1.495(b) a receipt date, and papers filed under 37 CFR 1.41(c), 1.41(a)(2) (pre-AIA), 1.48(d), 1.53(c)(2), and 1.53(c)(2) (pre-Patent Law Treaty (PLT) (AIA)) (the particular items covered under this collection are identified in more detail at Table 1 below).

Most applications for patent, including new utility, design, and provisional applications, can be submitted to the USPTO through EFS-Web. EFS-Web is the USPTO's system for electronically filing of patent correspondence and is accessible via the Internet on the USPTO Web site. The Legal Framework for EFS-Web, available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/Newlegalframework.jsp, provides a listing of patent applications and documents permitted to be filed via EFS-Web and patent applications and documents not permitted to be filed via EFS-Web.

There are 69 forms in this collection. This total incudes versions of the inventor's oath and declaration forms that were created to comply with the changes resulting from the AIA, e.g., forms AIA/01, AIA/02, etc., as well as pre-AIA versions of the oath and declaration forms, e.g., forms SB/01, SB/02, etc., and foreign language translations of the oath and declaration forms, e.g., forms AIA/01CN, SB/02CN, etc. Items in this collection that do not have forms associated with them include the petitions and the papers filed under 37 CFR 1.41(c), 1.41(a)(2) (pre-AIA), 1.48(d), 1.53(c)(2), and 1.53(c)(2) (pre-PLT (AIA)).

By mail, hand delivery, or facsimile (except that, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.6(d), the items covered under this collection that may be submitted by facsimile are limited to the petitions and the papers filed under 37 CFR 1.41(c), 1.41(a)(2) (pre-AIA), 1.48(d), 1.53(c)(2), and 1.53(c)(2) (pre-PLT (AIA))). Most of these items can also be submitted through EFS-Web.

OMB Number: 0651-0032.

Form Number(s): PTO/SB/01, 01A, 02, 02A, 02B, 02CN, 02DE, 02ES, 02FR, 02IT, 02JP, 02KR, 02LR, 02NL, 02RU, 02SE, 03, 03A, 04, 06, 07, 14 EFS-Web, 16, 16 EFS-Web, 17, 29, 29A, and 101-110. This collection also includes the following AIA forms: PTO/AIA01 through AIA04, AIA08 through AIA11, AIA14 and 15, AIA18 and 19, and AIA01CN and 01DE, 01ES, 01FR, 01IT, 01JP, 01KR, 01NL, 01RU, 01SE, 02CN, 02DE, 02ES, 02FR, 02IT, 02JP, 02KR, 02NL, 02RU, and 02SE.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

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

Estimated Number of Respondents: 470,403 responses per year. The USPTO estimates that approximately 130,313 of these responses will be from small entities. This estimate reflects a 25% small entity responses rate for all items in the collection, except for design-related items in the collection, for which a 50% small entity response rate is estimated. The USPTO also estimates that 406,995 of the responses will be filed electronically.

Estimated Time Per Response: The USPTO estimates that it takes the public approximately 30 minutes to 40 hours (0.50 to 40 hours) to complete this information, depending on the complexity of the request. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, prepare the application, petition, or paper submission, and submit the completed request to the USPTO. The USPTO calculates that, on balance, it takes the same amount of time to complete these steps and submit items to the USPTO, whether the applicant submits in paper form or electronically.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 12,776,282 hours per year.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $5,238,275,620 per year. The USPTO expects that all of the information in this collection will be prepared by an attorney. Using the professional hourly rate of $410 for attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost for this collection is $5,238,275,620 per year.

Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden: $1,195,268,438.53.

There is no maintenance, operation, capital start-up, or recordkeeping costs associated with this information collection. However, this collection does have annual (non-hour) costs in the form of postage and drawing costs, as well as filing fees.

Although the USPTO prefers that the items in this collection be submitted electronically, the items may be submitted by mail through the United States Postal Service (USPS). The USPTO estimates that the average cost for sending a patent application by Priority Mail Express® will be $19.99 and that up to 14,441 may be mailed to the USPTO, resulting in $288,675.59 in the postage costs.

The USPTO estimates that the petitions and other papers covered under this collection, if submitted by mail, will be sent by first-class mail; a postage rate of $0.94. The USPTO estimates that up to 301 submissions may be mailed per year, thus resulting in $282.94 in first-class mailing costs.

Patent applicants can submit drawings with the applications covered under this collection. As a basis for estimating the drawing costs, the USPTO expects that all applicants will have their drawings prepared by patent illustration firms. Estimates for the drawings can vary greatly, depending on the number of figures that need to be produced, the total number of pages for the drawings, and the complexity of the drawings. Because there are many variables involved, the USPTO is using the average of the cost ranges found for the application drawings to derive the estimated cost per sheet that is then used to calculate the total drawing costs.

The utility, plant, and design continuation and divisional applications use the same drawings as the initial filings, so they are not included in these totals. The continuation-in-part applications may use some of the same drawings as the initial applications and some new drawings may be submitted, so those numbers are included in these estimates. The drawings for the continued prosecution applications also are included in the drawing cost totals.

The USPTO estimates that total drawing costs is $608,610,280. The break-down of costs for utility, design, plant, and provisional drawings is broken down in table 2 below.

In this collection, there is also an annual (non-hour) cost burden in the way of filing fees. Many of the fees had previously been housed within information collection 0651-0072 (America Invents Act Section 10 Patent Fee Adjustments), but these fees have been returned to this collection. The total estimated filing costs for this collection is $586,369,200 and is detailed in table 3 below.

The USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of postage costs, drawing costs, and filing fees is estimated to be approximately $1,164,394,638.53 per year.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the USPTO's request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Comments are invited on:

Principal Campaign Committees

All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Kansas Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on March 30, 2017, and a 30-day Post-General Report on May 11, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).

Political committees filing on a semi-annual basis in 2017 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Kansas Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Kansas Special General Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.

Additional disclosure information in connection with the Kansas Special Election may be found on the FEC Web site at http://www.fec.gov/info/report_dates.shtml.

Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,900 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30101-46, coordinated party expenditure limits (52 U.S.C. 30116(d)(3)), certain contribution limits (52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A) and (B), and (h)), and the disclosure threshold for contributions bundled by lobbyists (52 U.S.C. 30104(i)(3)(A)) are adjusted periodically to reflect changes in the consumer price index. See 52 U.S.C. 30104(i)(3), 30116(c)(1); 11 CFR 109.32 and 110.17(a), (f). The Commission is publishing this notice to announce the adjusted limits and disclosure threshold.

Under 52 U.S.C. 30116(c), the Commission must adjust the expenditure limitations established by 52 U.S.C. 30116(d) (the limits on expenditures by national party committees, state party committees, or their subordinate committees in connection with the general election campaign of candidates for Federal office) annually to account for inflation. This expenditure limitation is increased by the percent difference between the price index, as certified to the Commission by the Secretary of Labor, for the 12 months preceding the beginning of the calendar year and the price index for the base period (calendar year 1974). 52 U.S.C. 30116(c).

Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for each general election held to fill a seat in the House of Representatives in states with more than one congressional district. See 52 U.S.C. 30116(d)(3)(B). This limitation also applies to the District of Columbia and territories that elect individuals to the office of Delegate or Resident Commissioner.1 Id. The formula used to calculate the expenditure limitation in such states and territories multiplies the base figure of $10,000 by the difference in the price index (4.86767), rounding to the nearest $100. See 52 U.S.C. 30116(c)(1)(B), (d)(3)(B); 11 CFR 109.32(b), 110.17. Based upon this formula, the expenditure limitation for 2017 general elections for House candidates in these states, districts, and territories is $48,700.

Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for a general election held to fill a seat in the Senate or in the House of Representatives in states with only one congressional district. See 52 U.S.C. 30116(d)(3)(A). The formula used to calculate this expenditure limitation considers not only the price index but also the voting age population (“VAP”) of the state. Id. The VAP figures used to calculate the expenditure limitations were certified by the U.S. Census Bureau. The VAP of each state is also published annually in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Commerce. 11 CFR 110.18. The general election expenditure limitation is the greater of: The base figure ($20,000) multiplied by the difference in the price index, 4.86767 (which totals $97,400); or $0.02 multiplied by the VAP of the state, multiplied by 4.86767. Amounts are rounded to the nearest $100. See 52 U.S.C. 30116(c)(1)(B), (d)(3)(A); 11 CFR 109.32(b), 110.17. The chart below provides the state-by-state breakdown of the 2017 general election expenditure limitation for Senate elections. The expenditure limitation for 2017 House elections in states with only one congressional district 2 is $97,400.

Principal Campaign Committees

All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the California Special General and Special Runoff Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on March 23, 2017; a 12-day Pre-Runoff Report on May 25, 2017; and a 30-day Post-Runoff Report on July 6, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

If only one election is held, all principal campaign committees of candidates in the Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on March 23, 2017; and a 30-day Post-General Report on May 4, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).

Political committees filing on a semi-annual basis in 2017 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the California Special General Election and/or Special Runoff Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)

Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the California Special General or Special Runoff Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.

Additional disclosure information in connection with the California Special Election may be found on the FEC Web site at http://www.fec.gov/info/report_dates.shtml.

Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,900 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: Cost-Sharing Reduction Reconciliation Information Collection; Use: Under established Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations, qualified health plan (QHP) issuers will receive estimated advance payments of cost-sharing reductions throughout the year. Each issuer will then be subject to a reconciliation process at the end of the benefit year to ensure that HHS reimburses each issuer only for actual cost sharing. This revised collection adds three optional data elements, a Policy Identification number, Policy Start Date, and Policy End Date, and proposes to make optional most summary plan level reporting. Form Number: CMS-10526 (OMB control number: 0938-1266). Frequency: Once, Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector—Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 295; Number of Responses: 4,000,000; Total Annual Hours: 5,373. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Pat Meisol at 410-786-1917.)

In the Federal Register of January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1345), FDA announced that a meeting of the Pediatric Advisory Committee (PAC) would be held on March 6 and 7, 2017. On page 1346, in the third column, the CDER products portion of the document is changed to read as follows:

On March 6, 2017, the PAC will meet to discuss the following products (listed by FDA Center):

This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.

When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-New-60D for reference.

Information Collection Request Title: National Council for Behavioral Health's Information Technology Survey.

Abstract: The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC), in coordination with Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) seeks to conduct a survey annually for the next three years to examine trends in the adoption and use of health IT as well as interoperability across community behavioral health care settings. Data from the survey will help ONC and SAMSHA monitor progress and enhance programs and policy to improve the use of health IT and expand interoperability across these settings. In 2015, ONC outlined a strategy by which both private and public stakeholders would work together to improve interoperability. This strategy called for measuring and reporting on the state of interoperability across the care continuum, including for behavioral health care providers; however, there are no recent national data available for this care setting. Addressing this gap is critical in order to also determine these providers' readiness to serve as partners in delivery system reform efforts that are underway and that will be expanded with the implementation of Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). Although behavioral health care providers won't be participating in the MACRA initiative at the outset, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may include behavioral health providers, such as psychologists and social workers to participate in value-based payment initiatives such as the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPs) in the future.

Likely Respondents: The respondents will include mid-level and executive level staff (IT Directors, CIO, and CEOs) of behavioral healthcare organizations that are involved in the management and maintenance of their organization's health IT infrastructure.

The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Proposed Collection Title: Generic Clearance for Surveys of Customers and Partners of the Office of Extramural Research of the National Institutes of Health—Extension of 0925-0627—Office of the Director (OD), Office of Extramural Research (OER), Office of Extramural Programs (OEP), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Need and Use of Information Collection: OER develops, coordinates the implementation of, and evaluates NIH-wide policies and procedures for the award of extramural funds. To move forward with our initiatives to ensure success in accomplishing the NIH mission, input from partners and customers is essential. Quality management principles have been integrated into OER's culture and these surveys will provide customer satisfaction input on various elements of OER's business processes. The approximately 14 (10 quantitative and 4 qualitative) customer satisfaction surveys that will be conducted under this generic clearance will gather and measure customer and partner satisfaction with OER processes and operations. The data collected from these surveys will provide the feedback to track and gauge satisfaction with the NIH's statutorily mandated operations and processes. OER/OD/NIH will present data and outcomes from these surveys to inform the NIH staff, officers, leadership, advisory committees, and other decision-making bodies as appropriate. Based on feedback from these stakeholders, OER/OD/NIH will formulate improvement plans and take action when necessary.

OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1911.

The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, and sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law 1 and Coast Guard regulation,2 a vessel may instead meet alternative requirements and the vessel's owner, builder, operator, or agent may apply for a COAC. For vessels of special construction, the cognizant Coast Guard District Office determines whether the vessel for which the COAC is sought complies as closely as possible with the 72 COLREGS, and decides whether to issue the COAC. Once issued, a COAC remains valid until information supplied in the COAC application or the COAC terms become inapplicable to the vessel. Under the governing statute 3 and regulation,4 the Coast Guard must publish notice of this action.

The Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that the TUG CLAYTON W MORAN is a vessel of special construction or purpose, and that, with respect to the position of the navigation and towing lights, it is not possible to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation of the vessel. The Commandant further finds and certifies that the sidelights (13′ 5.25″ from the vessel's side mounted on the pilot house) and stern/towing lights (3′ 5.75″ aft of frame 20 mounted on top of the pilot house) are in the closet possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS and that full compliance with the 72 COLREGS would not significantly enhance the safety of the vessel's operation.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR. 81.

Background

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85-93, published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1985 (50 FR 21832), the interest rate paid on applicable overpayments or underpayments of customs duties must be in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code rate established under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and 6622. Section 6621 provides different interest rates applicable to overpayments: One for corporations and one for non-corporations.

The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.

In Revenue Ruling 2016-28, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2017, and ending on March 31, 2017. The interest rate paid to the Treasury for underpayments will be the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of four percent (4%) for both corporations and non-corporations. For corporate overpayments, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of three percent (3%). For overpayments made by non-corporations, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of four percent (4%). These interest rates are subject to change for the calendar quarter beginning April 1, 2017, and ending June 30, 2017.

For the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel the following list of IRS interest rates used, covering the period from before July of 1974 to date, to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of customs duties, is published in summary format.

Comments

You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2010-0014 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: myE-Verify.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: G-1499; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form is used by employees in the United States to enter data into the Verification Information System (VIS) to ensure that the information relating to their eligibility to work is correct and accurate before beginning new employment.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form G-1499 is 250,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is .0833 hours (5 minutes). Of this 250,000, an estimated 75,000 respondents will need to correct information that may have been entered incorrectly to continue using myE-Verify; this estimated burden per response is .0833 hours (5 minutes). Of this 250,000, an estimated 10,000 respondents may be required to pursue further action to correct their records at the appropriate agency; this estimated burden per response is 1.183 hours. Of this 250,000, an estimated 25,000 respondents will be required to provide additional information for a second Authentication Check; this estimated burden per response is .25 hours (15 minutes).

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 45,153 hours.

(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $0.

The Northwest Colorado RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of public land issues in northwestern Colorado. Topics of discussion during Northwest Colorado RAC meetings may include management of the Greater Sage-Grouse, working group reports, recreation, fire management, land use planning, invasive species management, energy and minerals management, travel management, wilderness, wild horse herd management, land exchange proposals, cultural resource management, and other issues as appropriate. These meetings are open to the public. Subcommittees under this RAC may meet this year regarding travel management in the White River Field Office. Active subcommittees report to the RAC at each council meeting. Subcommittee meetings are open to the public. More information is available at https://www.blm.gov/get-involved/resource-advisory-council/near-you/colorado/northwest-rac. The public may present written comments to the RACs. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time allocated, as identified above, for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.

This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the information collection requirements contained in the Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption (PTE) applicable to the sale of individual life insurance or annuity contracts by a plan (PTE 1992-6). More specifically, PTE 1992-6 exempts from the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., the sale of individual life insurance or annuity contracts by a plan to participants, relatives of participants, employers any of whose employees are covered by the plan, other employee benefit plans, owner-employees or shareholder-employees; provided, certain conditions are met. In the absence of this exemption, certain aspects of these transactions might be prohibited by ERISA section 406. Among other conditions, PTE 1992-6 requires that a pension plan inform the insured participant of a proposed sale of a life insurance or annuity policy to the employer, a relative, another plan, an owner-employee, or a shareholder-employee. ERISA section 408(a) authorizes this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 1108(a).

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1210-0063.

OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2016 (81 FR 75157).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1210-0063. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

Agency: DOL-EBSA.

Title of Collection: Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1992-6: Sale of Individual Life Insurance or Annuity Contracts by a Plan.

OMB Control Number: 1210-0063.

Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,877.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 10,877.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 2,175 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $5,656.

The meeting will be open to the public, except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the contact person listed in the section above entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a discussion regarding SEC investor research initiatives, the FINRA 2016 Financial Capability Study, and academic research on financial literacy; a discussion regarding unequal voting rights of common stock; a report on the nonpublic administrative work session; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.