Federal Register Vol. 82, No.44,

Title: Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, Marketing Order No. 983.

OMB Number: 0581-0215.

Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2017.

Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), fresh fruits, vegetables, and specialty crop industries can enter into marketing order programs which provide an opportunity for producers, in a specified production area, to work together to solve marketing problems that cannot be solved individually. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to oversee the marketing order's operations and issue regulations recommended by a committee of representatives from each commodity industry.

The Specialty Crops Program is part of the larger AMS, and is responsible for overseeing Federal marketing order operations. The Specialty Crops Program was formerly named the Fruit and Vegetable Program. Among other modifications described below to the pistachio marketing order forms is the change of certain form numbers from “FV” to “SC.”

This notice pertains to the Federal marketing order regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico (7 CFR part 983), hereinafter referred to as the “marketing order.” The marketing order authorizes grade and size requirements, as well as a requirement for aflatoxin testing on domestic shipments only.

The Administrative Committee for Pistachios (Committee) locally administers the marketing order. The marketing order requires handlers to submit certain information to the Committee to effectively implement the requirements of the marketing order, fulfill the intent of the AMAA, and assist the industry in carrying out marketing decisions. Only authorized employees of the Committee, and authorized representatives of the USDA have access to information provided on the forms.

Requesting public comments on the forms described below is part of the process to obtain approval through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The forms needing OMB approval are contained in OMB No. 0581-0215 and include Committee nominations and ballots for producers (SC-245 and SC-246) and handlers (SC-245A and SC-244); background statements for Committee nominees (SC-243); marketing agreement (SC-242); and referendum (SC-240A) and continuance ballots (SC-240). There are also forms to report assessment receipts (ACP-1), minimal testing for aflatoxins (ACP-5), inter-handler transfer (ACP-6), inventory shipments (ACP-7), producer delivery (ACP-8), exemptions for handlers (ACP-4), and failed lot notifications (ACP-2) and failed lot dispositions (ACP-3).

In this renewal, AMS has identified modifications to the forms to meet the pistachio industry's evolving needs. Forms noted with “FV” have been revised to “SC” due to the change in the agency's name. AMS submitted a justification of change to OMB to convert the Imported Pistachios—Failed Lot Notification Report (SC-249) into an electronic form as a result of the International Trade Data System initiative. The Import Pistachios—Rework and Failed Lot Disposition Report (SC-251) has become obsolete, since the information collected on this form can now be obtained from other sources. This form is being removed and is not included in the OMB No. 0581-0215 renewal package.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.26 hours per response.

Respondents: Pistachio producers, handlers, and testing laboratories.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 821.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.30.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 488.68 hours.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of the information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

Title: National 4-H Conference applications and forms.

OMB Number: 0524-new.

Type of Request: Intent to request approval to establish a new information collection and record keeping requirement for three years.

Abstract: In 1927, USDA began sponsoring the “National 4-H Club Camp”. The camp was held on the grounds of the National Mall in front of the USDA in Washington, DC and served to develop the next generation of leaders. Delegates attended training workshops, became acquainted with government and had the opportunity to meet with state leaders.

In 1958, the event name was changed to National 4-H Conference and, in 1959, the meeting moved from the National Mall to the newly founded National 4-H Center in Chevy Chase, MD, where it is still held today.

Currently, the annual National 4-H Conference brings youth delegates together to accomplish three goals:

(1) Learn—Provide youth a broad- based learning experience in which they will acquire practical knowledge and skills to reinforce the attitudes and motivation that will give them a heightened sense of responsibility and capacity to connect as active members of their communities, nation and world.

(2) Practice—Engage youth in hands-on educational activities in which they explore, practice and master existing and newly developed skills/knowledge in civic engagement, civic education and personal development.

(3) Apply—Facilitate direct opportunities for youth to apply what was learned in real world experiences in which they develop leadership skills using their voices, work, ideas and/or behavior to make a difference in their community, country and world.

The National 4-H Conference organizers propose an information collection and record keeping requirement for adult and youth conference leadership team applicants, program evaluation of conference participants, and health forms for youth delegates. The records to be maintained and the information collected will allow for better oversight and assessment of the program. Each new requirement is described in detail below.

Need and Use of the Records: Approximately six former National 4-H Conference delegates who are still in high school and 18 years of age or under at the time of the National 4-H Conference are selected to be Youth Leadership Team members prior to and during National 4-H Conference. These Youth Leadership Team members plan and facilitate major components of the conference. The members must be skilled and prepared. An application for this volunteer position is required to assure the selection of qualified applicants. Up to two Youth Leadership Team adult advisors will also be chosen.

Components of the Record: The Youth Leadership Team application form includes: First and last name, grade in school, age, city and state, email, cell phone, home phone, 4-H Land Grant University associated with, years in 4-H, year attended National 4-H Conference, and other national 4-H teams served on. The form will have relevant questions to explain applicant qualifications and skills for the position.

Method of Collection: The application forms will be collected via email attachment.

Frequency of Response: This is a voluntary application process.

Affected Public: High schools students who are former National 4-H Conference delegates and interested Cooperative Extension State 4-H Office personnel.

Type of Respondents: High schools students who are former National 4-H Conference delegates and interested Cooperative Extension State 4-H Office personnel.

Estimate of Burden:

Need and Use of the Records: Approximately sixteen college students are selected to be roundtable facilitators prior to and during National 4-H Conference. These facilitators are responsible for leading a group of youth delegates through the development and presentation of a thirty minute briefing to a federal agency. Facilitators must be skilled and prepared. An application for this volunteer position is required to assure the selection of qualified applicants. There are four levels of roundtable facilitators: (1) Lead facilitator, (2) returning facilitators, (3) new facilitators, and (4) facilitator advisor.

Components of the Record: Applications for all four levels of facilitators will include: First and last name, college or university, gender, age, languages spoken, race, home phone, cell phone, email, mailing address, and home state or territory. Each level of facilitator applications will have relevant application questions to explain applicant qualifications and skills for the position.

Method of Collection: The application forms will be collected via email attachment.

Frequency of Response: The lead and returning facilitator positions are open to any college student age 19-25 whom has served as a National 4-H Conference facilitator in the past. New facilitator positions are open to any college student age 19-25. The facilitator advisor position is open to any Cooperative Extension State 4-H Office personnel. This is a volunteer application process for all levels.

Affected Public: Interested college students and State 4-H Office personnel.

Type of Respondents: College students and State 4-H Office personnel.

Estimate of Burden:

Need and Use of the Records: In order for continuous improvement of program implementation and keeping the conference relevant with current youth and issues, the conference planners will conduct program evaluations with the involved parties. There will be separate evaluation forms for the four audiences: (1) Youth Leadership Team Members, (2) Roundtable Facilitators, (3) Conference Delegates, and (4) Conference Chaperones.

Components of the Record: The evaluation forms will include quantitative questions ranking the success of each component of the conference. There will also be open ended questions to address future ideas and program areas to improve upon.

Method of Collection: Each member of each audience will receive a link via email to an online survey.

Frequency of Response: Each person will respond to one survey request. There will be up to 19 facilitator respondents, 8 youth leadership team respondents, 270 delegate respondents, and 70 chaperone respondents.

Affected Public: Participants in the National 4-H Conference.

Type of Respondents: Youth Delegates, Adult Chaperones, Youth Leadership Team Members (High School students) and Roundtable Facilitators (college students).

Estimate of Burden:

Need and Use of the Records: Youth delegates attend National 4-H Conference in Chevy Chase, MD. The youth delegates are accompanied by adult chaperones from their state. Medical histories are to be completed by the parent of each youth delegate to assist with medical emergencies of their children.

Components of the Record: The health form consists of sections on (1) current health conditions, allergies, special needs, tetanus and influenza vaccination, emergency contact information, and parental/guardian consent to medical treatment.

Method of Collection: The forms are completed by the parent and delivered in person to the conference by the delegates' chaperone.

Frequency of Response: Each delegate (approximately 270) and the roundtable facilitators (approximately 17) and youth leadership team members (approximately 6) fill out and submit a form.

Affected Public: Conference delegates, facilitators, and youth leadership team members.

Type of Respondents: Parents of High school students, college students.

Estimate of Burden:

Need and Use of the Records: Approximately 250 4-H youth and 75 adult chaperones attend National 4-H Conference on an annual basis. They need to complete a registration form to attend.

Components of the Record: The form consists of name, date of birth, address, phone number, email address, race and ethnicity, gender, emergency contact, Land Grant University affiliation, roundtable preferences, special accommodations, food requests.

Method of Collection: The delegates and chaperones will complete the registration form electronically and return it via email.

Frequency of Response: Approximately 250 youth and 75 adult chaperones will complete the registration form.

Affected Public: 4-H youth and adult chaperones who have applied and been selected to attend National 4-H Conference.

Type of Respondents: 4-H members and adult chaperones.

Estimate of Burden:

Total Estimate of Burden: The estimated annual reporting burden for all National 4-H Conference collection is as follows:

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed record keeping requirement and collection of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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.

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

Obtaining a Copy of the Information Collection: A copy of the information collection and related instructions may be obtained free of charge by contacting Robert Martin as directed above.

On January 6, 2017, the Department published the Preliminary Results. 1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results, but no comments were received.

The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

The product covered by this antidumping duty order is magnesium metal from the PRC, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this order includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium.

The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes; magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into rasping, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes; and products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 2 and are thus outside the scope of the existing antidumping orders on magnesium from the PRC (generally referred to as “alloy” magnesium).

The scope of this order excludes: (1) All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 3 ; (2) magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and (3) mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite.4

The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

As noted above, the Department received no comments concerning the Preliminary Results on the record of this segment of the proceeding. As there are no changes from, or comments on, the Preliminary Results, the Department finds that there is no reason to modify its analysis. Thus, we continue to find that TMI and TMM had no shipments of the subject merchandise, and, therefore, no reviewable transactions, during the POR.5 Accordingly, no decision memorandum accompanies this Federal Register notice. For further details of the issues addressed in this segment of the proceeding, see the Preliminary Results.

The Department determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

Additionally, consistent with the Department's refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy cases, because the Department determined that TMI and TMM had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR from these companies will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.6

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice of final results of the administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to TMI in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate (including TMM, which claimed no shipments, but has not been found to be separate from the PRC-wide entity), the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 141.49 percent 7 and (4) 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(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C 1801 et seq.), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing.

The proposed specimen collection involves activities otherwise prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR part 622, as they pertain to species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) including snapper-grouper, golden crab, coastal migratory pelagics, dolphin, wahoo, spiny lobster, and shrimp. The applicant requires authorization to collect 1,799 live fish, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp in the Federal waters off South Carolina, and sporadically off North Carolina. The federally-managed species to be collected by the applicant per year, over a 5-year period, listed by common name with the collection total, are: Black snapper (10); cobia (6); coney (10); dolphin (50); golden crab (5); graysby (10); groupers (Epinephelus spp. and Hyporthodus spp. including red, misty, red hind, rock hind, snowy, and yellowedge) (40); groupers (Myctoperca spp. and Cephalopholis spp. including black grouper, gag, yellowmouth, yellowfin, and scamp) (50); grunts (Haemulon spp. including cottonwick, margate, sailors choice, tomtate, and white) (250); hogfish (8); jacks including greater amberjack, almaco jack, banded rudderfish, bar jack, and lesser amberjack(200); king mackerel (15); little tunny (25); longspine porgy (50); ocean triggerfish (5); porgies including knobbed, jolthead, whitebone, and saucereye (65); porkfish (15); queen snapper (2); red porgy (25); red snapper (25); sand tilefish (10); sea basses including black, bank, and rock (100); scup (50); Atlantic spadefish (50); triggerfish (20); white shrimp (200); pink or brown shrimp (200); snappers excluding red snapper, but including yellowtail, gray, mutton, lane, cubera, silk, and blackfin (75); Spanish mackerel (15); spiny lobster (25); vermilion snapper (75); wahoo (5); and yellowtail snapper (15).

The project would use vertical hook-and-line gear with artificial and natural baits, black sea bass pots, spiny lobster traps, golden crab traps, habitat traps, octopus traps, hand nets, dip nets, and bait traps. Bait traps and minnow traps would be deployed by hand by divers using SCUBA gear. Most of the sample collection would be done in less than 300 ft (91 m) of water. No more than 5 each, black sea bass pots, lobster pots, golden crab traps, minnow traps, and bait traps would be deployed with a soak time of no more than 5 hours at a time, and will not be tied together on a groundline. Up to 10 habitat traps will also be utilized with a soak time of 7 days up to no more than 30 days. All trap and pot gear will be deployed either by hand by divers using SCUBA or through using individual nylon lines with buoys. All gear types would be utilized for the collection of requested species. This EFP would authorize sampling operations to be conducted on three vessels designated by the South Carolina Aquarium including: F/V REEL SCIENCE SC-9152-DE; F/V CUB SCOUT SC-9288-BF; and F/V MISTRESS SC-5326-BS.

All attempts would be made (venting, controlled ascent and descent, etc.) to release all non-targeted bycatch species alive. During each year of sampling requested through this EFP, there would be no traps or pots deployed from November 1 through April 30, to avoid interactions with North Atlantic right whales during their calving season. This EFP would not authorize the collection of warsaw grouper, speckled hind, goliath grouper, and Nassau grouper.

The overall intent of the project is to incorporate native species into educational exhibits at the South Carolina Aquarium. The aquarium uses these displays of native South Carolina species to teach the public about stewardship and habitat preservation.

NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of collection of specimens within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, special management zones, or artificial reefs without additional authorization. Currently, NMFS prohibits the possession of Nassau grouper, goliath grouper, speckled hind, warsaw grouper, and red snapper but intends to authorize collection of red snapper as requested in the application. NMFS would require any sea turtles taken incidentally during the course of fishing or scientific research activities to be handled with due care to prevent injury to live specimens, observed for activity, and returned to the water.

A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS' review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected states, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws.

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 by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified area, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals, provided that certain findings are made and the necessary prescriptions are established.

The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals shall be allowed if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary) finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking, as well as the other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat (i.e., mitigation) must be prescribed. Last, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking must be set forth.

Where there is the potential for serious injury or death, the allowance of incidental taking requires promulgation of regulations under section 101(a)(5)(A). Subsequently, a Letter (or Letters) of Authorization may be issued as governed by the prescriptions established in such regulations, provided that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may authorize incidental taking by harassment only (i.e., no serious injury or mortality), for periods of not more than one year, pursuant to requirements and conditions contained within an IHA. The promulgation of regulations or issuance of IHAs (with their associated prescripted mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) requires notice and opportunity for public comment.

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, we adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

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

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

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

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

On November 22, 2016, NMFS received an application from Glacier Bay NP requesting taking by harassment of marine mammals, incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on glaucous-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens) within Glacier Bay NP, Alaska. The application was considered adequate and complete on February 10, 2017. NMFS previously issued three IHAs to Glacier Bay NP for the same activities from 2014 to 2016 (79 FR 56065, September 18, 2014; 80 FR 28229, May 18, 2015; 81 FR 34994, May 16, 2016).

For the 2017 research season, Glacier Bay NP again proposes to conduct ground-based and vessel-based surveys to collect data on the number and distribution of nesting gulls within six study sites in Glacier Bay, AK. Marine mammals have only been observed at four of the six study sites. The proposed activities would occur over the course of five months, from May through September, 2017.

The following aspects of the proposed gull research activities have the potential to take marine mammals: Noise generated by motorboat approaches and departures; noise generated by researchers while conducting ground surveys; and human presence (visual disturbance) during the monitoring and research activities. Harbor seals hauled out at the study sites may flush into the water or exhibit temporary modification in behavior (Level B harassment). Thus, Glacier Bay NP has requested an authorization to take harbor seals by Level B harassment only. Although Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) may be present in the action area, Glacier Bay NP has proposed to avoid any site used by Steller sea lions.

Glacier Bay NP proposes to identify the onset of gull nesting; conduct mid-season surveys of adult gulls, and locate and document gull nest sites within the following study areas: Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. Each of these study sites contains harbor seal haulout sites and Glacier Bay NP proposes to visit each study site up to five times during the research season. Glacier Bay NP also proposes to conduct studies at South Marble Island and Tlingit Point Islet; however, there are no reported pinniped haulouts at those locations.

Glacier Bay NP must conduct the gull monitoring studies to meet the requirements of a 2010 Record of Decision for a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) (NPS, 2010) which states that Glacier Bay NP must initiate a monitoring program for the gulls to inform future native egg harvests by the Hoonah Tlingit in Glacier Bay, AK. Glacier Bay NP also actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting sites to assess population trends over time (e.g., Mathews & Pendleton, 2006; Womble et al., 2010). Glacier Bay NP coordinates pinniped monitoring programs with NMFS' Alaska Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and plans to continue these collaborations and sharing of monitoring data and observations in the future.

From May 1 through September 30, 2017, Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct a maximum of three ground-based surveys per each study site and a maximum of two vessel-based surveys per each study site. Duration of surveys would be 30 minutes (min) to two hours (hr) each.

The proposed study sites would occur in the vicinity of the following locations: Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Glacier Bay NP will also conduct studies at South Marble Island and Tlingit Point Islet (see Figure 1); however, there are no reported pinniped haulout sites at those locations.

Glaucous-winged gulls are common inshore residents along the northwestern coast of North America (Hayward and Verbeek, 2008). These gulls nest colonially in small and large aggregations, often on islands. Glaucous-winged gulls are abundant in Southeast AK throughout the year and nest colonially on islands in Glacier Bay from mid-May to August (Patten, 1974). Traditionally the Hoonah Tlingit, whose ancestral homeland encompasses Glacier Bay NP, harvested gull eggs annually during the spring and early summer months (Hunn, 2002). This historic egg harvest in Glacier Bay was an important activity both for cultural and nutritional purposes. Legislation is currently underway (Hoonah Tlingit Traditional Gull Egg Use Act: S. 156 and H. R. 3110) to allow native subsistence harvest of glaucous-winged gulls at up to 15 locations in Glacier Bay NP. An LEIS for gull egg harvest was developed and finalized in 2010 (NPS, 2010). The LEIS Record of Decision mandates that the NPS develop a monitoring program to inform a yearly traditional harvest plan and ensure that harvest activities do not impact park purposes and values (NPS, 2010). Annual monitoring requirements outlined in the LEIS include: Identify the onset of gull nesting, conduct mid-season adult counts, count number of eggs in nests during harvest, conduct complete nest surveys just before hatch on harvested islands, and document other bird and marine mammal species (pinnipeds present onshore) that may be impacted by harvest activities. Harvest sites will be selected based on several characteristics including size of colony; population parameters including productivity, population status, recent harvest, age of colony; and minimizing disturbance to other species present.

The goal of this project is to collect data on the number and distribution of nesting glaucous-winged gulls to fulfill the mandates of the LEIS Record of Decision and to inform the annual gull egg harvest. Gull monitoring will be conducted using a combination of ground and vessel surveys by landing at specific access points on the islands. Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct: (1) Ground-based surveys at a maximum frequency of three visits per site; and (2) vessel-based surveys at a maximum frequency of two visits per site from the period of May 1 through September 30, 2017. Surveys can be from 30 min to two hours.

Ground-Based Surveys: These surveys involve two trained observers conducting complete nest counts of the colonies (Zador, 2001; Arimitsu et al., 2007). The survey will encompass all portions of the gull colony accessible to humans and thus represent a census of the harvestable nests. GPS locations of nests and associated vegetation along with the number of live and predated eggs will be collected during at least one visit to obtain precise nest locations to characterize nesting habitat. On subsequent surveys, nest counts will be tallied on paper so observers can move through the colony more quickly and minimize disturbance. Ground surveys will be discontinued after the first hatched chick is detected to minimize disturbance and mortalities. During ground surveys, observers will also record other bird and marine mammal species in proximity to colonies.

The observers would access each island using a kayak, a 32.8 to 39.4-foot (ft) (10 to 12 meter (m)) motorboat, or a 12 ft (4 m) inflatable rowing dinghy. The landing craft's transit speed would not exceed 4 knots (kn) (4.6 miles per hour (mph)). Ground surveys generally last 30 min to two hrs each depending on the size of the island and the number of nesting gulls.

Vessel-Based Surveys: Surveys will be conducted from the deck of a motorized vessel and will be used to count the number of adult and fledgling gulls that are visible from the water (Zador, 2001; Arimitsu et al., 2007). Vessel surveys provide more reliable estimate of the numbers of gulls in the colony than ground surveys because NPS can count nesting birds in areas that are inaccessible by foot and because the birds do not flush from the researchers presence. Glacier Bay NP would conduct these surveys by circling the islands at approximately 100 m and counting the number of adult and chick gulls as well as other bird and mammal species present. Surveys can be from 30 min to two hrs in duration.

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in the document (Mitigation section and Monitoring and Reporting section).

Sections 3 and 4 of the NPS' application and the 2015 and 2016 monitoring reports contain detailed information on the abundance, status, and distribution of the species at the study sites from ground and vessel surveys that NPS has conducted as well as information from harbor seal monitoring aerial surveys conducted between 2007-2015 (Womble unpublished data). This information is summarized below and may be viewed in detail at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. Additional species information is available in the NMFS SARs for Alaska at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/region.htm.

Marine mammals under NMFS' jurisdiction that occur in the vicinity of the study sites in Glacier Bay NP include the harbor seal and Steller sea lion (Table 1). Both are protected under the MMPA and the Steller sea lion is listed as endangered (Western Distinct Population Segment) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Northern sea otters (Southeast Alaska stock) (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) are protected by the MMPA and could occur in the project area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages Northern sea otters and are therefore are not discussed further in this proposed authorization.

Harbor seals are the most abundant marine mammal species found within the action area and present year-round. Harbor seals range from Baja California north along the west coasts of Washington, Oregon, California, British Columbia, and Southeast Alaska; west through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the Aleutian Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to Cape Newenham and the Pribilof Islands. The current statewide abundance estimate for Alaskan harbor seals is 205,090 (Boveng et al. in press as cited in Muto et al., 2015), based on aerial survey data collected during 1998-2011. In 2010, harbor seals in Alaska were partitioned into 12 separate stocks based largely on genetic structure (Allen and Angliss, 2010). Harbor seals have declined dramatically in some parts of their range over the past few decades, while in other parts their numbers have increased or remained stable over similar time periods.

Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice (Allen and Angliss, 2014). They are non-migratory; their local movements are associated with tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction, as well as sex and age class (Allen and Angliss, 2014; Boveng et al., 2012; Lowry et al., 2001; Swain et al., 1996). Pupping in Alaska generally takes place in May and June; while molting generally occurs from June to October.

Harbor seals of Glacier Bay are considered part of the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock (Table 2)—ranging from Cape Fairweather southeast to Column Point, extending inland to Glacier Bay, Icy Strait, and from Hanus Reef south to Tenakee Inlet (Muto et al., 2015). The Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock showed a negative population trend estimate for harbor seals from 1992 to 2008 in June and August for glacial (−7.7 percent/yr; −8.2 percent/yr) and terrestrial sites (−12.4 percent/yr, August only) (Womble et al., 2010 as cited in Muto et al., 2015). Trend estimates by Mathews and Pendleton (2006) were similarly negative for both glacial and terrestrial sites. Long-term monitoring of harbor seals on glacial ice has occurred in Glacier Bay since the 1970s (Mathews and Pendleton, 2006) and has shown this area to support one of the largest breeding aggregations in AK (Steveler, 1979; Calambokidis et al., 1987 as cited in Muto et al., 2015). After a dramatic retreat of Muir Glacier (more than 7 km), in the East Arm of Glacier Bay, between 1973 and 1986 and the subsequent grounding and cessation of calving in 1993, floating glacial ice was greatly reduced as a haul-out substrate for harbor seals and ultimately resulted in the abandonment of upper Muir Inlet by harbor seals (Calambokidis et al., 1987; Hall et al., 1995; Mathews, 1995 as cited in Muto et al., 2015). Prior to 1993, seal counts were up to 1,347 in the East Arm of Glacier Bay; 2008 counts were fewer than 200 (Streveler, 1979; Molnia, 2007 as cited in Muto et al., 2015). The current (2007-2011) estimate of the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait population trend is +179 seals per year, with a probability that the stock is decreasing of 0.40 (Muto et al., 2015).

Harbor seals from the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock can be found hauled-out at four of the gull monitoring study sites (Table 3). Seal counts from gull monitoring surveys likely represent a minimum estimate due to difficulty observing marine mammals from a vessel. Counts from gull monitoring surveys are also conducted during high tide so fewer seals may be present.

It was determined that take will not occur for Steller sea lions based on survey data available. A total of five Steller sea lions have been observed during the 2015 and 2016 survey seasons, but were observed outside the study area. Although Steller sea lions may be present in the action area, Glacier Bay NP has proposed to avoid any sites used by Steller sea lions. Therefore, Steller sea lions are not discussed further in this proposed authorization.

The only marine mammals anticipated to be affected by the specified activities and proposed as take for Level B harassment are harbor seals hauled out at the study sites in Glacier Bay and therefore they are the only marine mammal discussed further in this proposed authorization.

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

In the following discussion, we provide general background information on sound and marine mammal hearing. Acoustic and visual stimuli generated by: (1) Motorboat operations; and (2) the appearance of researchers may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of any pinnipeds hauled out on Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock.

Harbor seals may potentially experience behavioral disruption rising to the level of harassment from monitoring and research activities, which may include airborne noise during the brief periods from research vessels and visual disturbance due to the presence and activity of the researchers on land. Disturbed seals are likely to experience any or all of these stimuli, and take may occur due to any of these in isolation or in combination with the others. Due to the likely constant combination of visual and acoustic stimuli resulting from the presence and vessels and researchers, we assume that harbor seals present may be disturbed and do not consider acoustic effects separately from the effects of potential disturbance due to visual stimuli.

Visual stimuli due to the presence of research activities during the project have the potential to result in take of harbor seals at nearby haul out sites through behavioral disturbance. Harbor seals can exhibit a behavioral response to visual stimuli (e.g., including alert behavior, movement, vocalizing, or flushing). NMFS does not consider the lesser reactions (e.g., alert behavior) to constitute harassment. Upon the occurrence of low-severity disturbance (i.e., the approach of a vessel or person as opposed to an explosion or sonic boom), pinnipeds typically exhibit a continuum of responses, beginning with alert movements (e.g., raising the head), which may then escalate to movement away from the stimulus and possible flushing into the water. Flushed pinnipeds typically re-occupy the haul out within minutes to hours of the stimulus (Allen et al. 1984 (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez, 2007).

Disturbances resulting from human activity can impact short- and long-term pinniped haul out behavior (Renouf et al., 1981; Schneider and Payne, 1983; Terhune and Almon, 1983; Allen et al., 1984; Stewart, 1984; Suryan and Harvey, 1999; Mortenson et al., 2000; and Kucey and Trites, 2006). Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, and displacement. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007). These behavioral reactions from marine mammals are often shown as: Changing durations of surfacing and dives, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior; avoidance of areas; and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into the water from haul outs or rookeries). If a marine mammal does react briefly to human presence by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if visual stimuli from human presence displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart, 2007).

Numerous studies have shown that human activity can flush pinnipeds off haul-out sites and beaches (Kenyon, 1972; Allen et al., 1984; Calambokidis et al., 1991; Suryan and Harvey, 1999; and Mortenson et al., 2000). In 1997, Henry and Hammil (2001) conducted a study to measure the impacts of small boats (i.e., kayaks, canoes, motorboats and sailboats) on harbor seal haul-out behavior in Métis Bay, Quebec, Canada. During that study, the authors noted that the most frequent disturbances (n=73) were caused by lower speed, lingering kayaks and canoes (33.3 percent) as opposed to motorboats (27.8 percent) conducting high speed passes. The seals flight reactions could be linked to a surprise factor by kayaks-canoes, which approach slowly, quietly and low on water making them look like predators. However, the authors note that once the animals were disturbed, there did not appear to be any significant lingering effect on the recovery of numbers to their pre-disturbance levels. In conclusion, the study showed that boat traffic at current levels has only a temporary effect on the haul-out behavior of harbor seals in the Métis Bay area.

In 2004, Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez (2007) evaluated the efficacy of buffer zones for watercraft around harbor seal haul-out sites on Yellow Island, Washington state. The authors estimated the minimum distance between the vessels and the haul-out sites; categorized the vessel types; and evaluated seal responses to the disturbances. During the course of the seven-weekend study, the authors recorded 14 human-related disturbances, which were associated with stopped powerboats and kayaks. During these events, hauled out seals became noticeably active and moved into the water. The flushing occurred when stopped kayaks and powerboats were at distances as far as 453 and 1,217 ft (138 and 371 m) respectively. The authors note that the seals were unaffected by passing powerboats, even those approaching as close as 128 ft (39 m), possibly indicating that the animals had become tolerant of the brief presence of the vessels and ignored them. The authors reported that on average, the seals quickly recovered from the disturbances and returned to the haul-out site in less than or equal to 60 minutes. Seal numbers did not return to pre-disturbance levels within 180 minutes of the disturbance less than one quarter of the time observed. The study concluded that the return of seal numbers to pre-disturbance levels and the relatively regular seasonal cycle in abundance throughout the area counter the idea that disturbances from powerboats may result in site abandonment (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez, 2007).

The probability of vessel and marine mammal interactions (i.e., motorboat strike) occurring during the proposed research activities is unlikely due to the motorboat's slow operational speed, which is typically 2 to 3 knots (2.3 to 3.4 mph) and the researchers continually scanning the water for marine mammals presence during transit to the islands. Thus, NMFS does not anticipate that strikes or collisions would result from the movement of the motorboat.

During the harbor seal breeding (May-June) and molting (August) periods, ~66 percent of seals in Glacier Bay inhabit the primary glacial ice site and ~22 percent of seals are found in and adjacent to a group of islands in the southeast portion of Glacier Bay. At the proposed study sites in 2016, only one pup was observed and in 2015, no pups were observed during project activities. Pups have been observed during aerial surveys during the pupping seasons (conducted during low tide), but in few numbers (see Table 4). NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed activities would result in separation of mothers and pups as pups are rarely seen at the study sites.

The main impact associated with the proposed activity will be temporarily elevated noise levels and human disturbance and the associated direct effects on marine mammals (i.e., the potential for temporary abandonment of the site), previously discussed in this notice. NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed restoration activities would result in any permanent effects on the habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use (i.e., fish and invertebrates). Based on the preceding discussion, NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed activity would have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. NMFS does not expect that the proposed activity would have any effects on marine mammal habitat and NMFS expects that there will be no long- or short-term physical impacts to pinniped habitat in Glacier Bay, AK. The proposed activities will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, including prey species and foraging habitat.

Based on the available data, previous monitoring reports from Glacier Bay NP, and studies described here, we anticipate that any pinnipeds found in the vicinity of the proposed project could have short-term behavioral reactions (i.e., may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas) due to noise and visual disturbance generated by: (1) Motorboat approaches and departures and (2) human presence during gull research activities. We would expect the pinnipeds to return to a haul-out site within minutes to hours of the stimulus based on previous research (Allen et al., 1985). Pinnipeds may be temporarily displaced from their haul-out sites, but we do not expect that the pinnipeds would permanently abandon a haul-out site during the conduct of the proposed research as activities are short in duration (30 min to up to two hours), and previous surveys have demonstrated that seals have returned to their haulout sites and have not permanently abandoned the sites.

NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed activities would result in the injury, serious injury, or mortality of pinnipeds. NMFS does not anticipate that strikes or collisions would result from the movement of the motorboat. The proposed activities will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, including prey species and foraging habitat. The potential effects to marine mammals described in this section of the document do not take into consideration the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures described later in this document (see the “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting” sections).

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

Take in the form of harassment is expected to result from these activities. 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).

As described previously in the Effects section, Level B Harassment is expected to occur and is proposed to be authorized in the numbers identified below. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures, Level A Harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. The death of a marine mammal is also a type of incidental take. However, as described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized to result from this activity.

All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. NMFS expects that the presence of Glacier Bay NP personnel could disturb animals hauled out and that the animals may alter their behavior or attempt to move away from the researchers.

Harbor seals may be disturbed when vessels approach or researchers go ashore for the purpose of monitoring gull colonies. Harbor seals tend to haul out in small numbers at study sites (2015-2016): Boulder Island—average 4.85 seals, Flapjack Island—average 11.22 seals, Geikie Rock—average 10.25 seals, and Lone Island average of 17.22 seals (see raw data from Tables 1 of the 2016 and 2015 Monitoring Report). Based on previous pinniped observations during gull monitoring (2015 and 2016) conducted by Glacier Bay NP, NMFS estimates that the research activities could potentially affect by Level B behavioral harassment 218 incidents of harassment to harbor seals over the course of the Authorization. This number was calculated by multiplying the average number of seals observed at each site (2015-2016) by five visits per site for a total of 218 incidents of harassment (Table 5). The highest number of annual visits to each gull study site will be five, therefore it is expected that individual harbor seals at a given site will be disturbed no more than five times per year.

There can be greater numbers of seals on the survey islands then what is detected by the NPS during the gull surveys. Aerial survey maximum counts show that harbor seals sometimes haul out in large numbers at all four locations (see Table 1 of the application). However, harbor seals hauled out at Flapjack Island are generally on the southern end whereas the gull colony is on the northern end. Similarly, harbor seals on Boulder Island tend to haul out on the southern end while the gull colony is located and can be accessed on the northern end without disturbance. Aerial survey counts for harbor seals are conducted during low tide while ground and vessel surveys are conducted during high tide, which along with greater visibility during aerial surveys, may also contribute to why there are greater numbers of seals observed during the aerial surveys.

Subsistence harvest of harbor seals by Alaska Natives is exempted from the MMPA's take prohibition (16 U.S.C. 1371(b)(1)); however, subsistence harvest of harbor seals has not been permitted in Glacier Bay NP since 1974 (Catton, 1995). The extensive post-breeding seasonal distribution of seals from Glacier Bay (Womble and Gende, 2013b) may expose seals to subsistence harvest outside of the park. Subsistence surveys and anthropological studies demonstrate that harbor seals may be harvested during all months; however, there are typically two distinct seasonal peaks for harvest of seals, which occur during spring and in autumn/early winter (de Laguna, 1972; Emmons, 1991). These time periods co-occur with the time period during which seals travel beyond the boundaries of Glacier Bay (Womble and Gende, 2013b). The level of subsistence harvest on seals from Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock has not been quantified; however, subsistence reports from nearby communities have documented subsistence harvest (e.g., Wolfe et al., 2009). Due to the prohibition of subsistence harvest at the gull study sites and the temporary behavior disturbance of marine mammal disturbance caused by this project, we anticipate no impacts to subsistence harvest of marine mammals in the region.

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

Glacier Bay NP has based the mitigation measures which they propose to implement during the proposed research, on the following: (1) Protocols used during previous gull research activities as required by our previous authorizations for these activities; and (2) recommended best practices in Womble et al. (2013); Richardson et al. (1995); Pierson et al. (1998); and Weir and Dolman (2007).

To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic and visual stimuli associated with the activities Glacier Bay NP and/or its designees has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:

• Perform pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a study site;

• Avoid accessing a site where Steller sea lions are present;

• Perform controlled and slow ingress to the study site to prevent flushing harbor seals and select a pathway of approach to minimize the number of marine mammals harassed;

• Monitor for offshore predators at study sites. Avoid approaching the study site if killer whales (Orcinus orca) are observed. If Glacier Bay NP and/or its designees see predators in the area, they must not disturb the pinnipeds until the area is free of predators; and

• Maintain a quiet research atmosphere in the visual presence of pinnipeds.

Prior to deciding to land onshore to conduct the study, the researchers would use high-powered image stabilizing binoculars from the watercraft to document the number, species, and location of hauled out marine mammals at each island. The vessels would maintain a distance of 328 to 1,640 ft (100 to 500 m) from the shoreline to allow the researchers to conduct pre-survey monitoring

If there are Steller sea lions are present, the researchers would not approach the island and would not conduct gull monitoring research.

The researchers would determine whether to approach the island based on type of animals present. Researchers would approach the island by motorboat at a speed of approximately 2 to 3 kns (2.3 to 3.4 mph). This would provide enough time for any marine mammals present to slowly enter the water without panic (flushing). The researchers would also select a pathway of approach farthest from the hauled out harbor seals to minimize disturbance.

If the researchers visually observe marine predators (i.e., killer whales) present in the vicinity of hauled out marine mammals, the researchers would not approach the study site.

While onshore at study sites, the researchers would remain vigilant for hauled out marine mammals. If marine mammals are present, the researchers would move slowly and use quiet voices to minimize disturbance to the animals present.

NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of affecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential 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, 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 would be exposed to received levels of pile driving, 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, 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 proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.

In order to issue an incidental take authorization for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act states that we must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The Act's implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for an incidental take authorization must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and our expectations of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals present in the action area.

Glacier Bay NP submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan in section 13 of their Authorization application. NMFS may modify or supplement the plan based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period. Any monitoring requirement NMFS prescribes should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:

• Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density);

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

• Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological);

• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, species, or stock;

• Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to marine mammals; and

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

As part of its application, Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct marine mammal monitoring during the present project, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring. The researchers will monitor the area for pinnipeds during all research activities. Monitoring activities will consist of conducting and recording observations on pinnipeds within the vicinity of the proposed research areas. The monitoring notes would provide dates, location, species, the researcher's activity, behavioral state, numbers of animals that were alert or moved greater than one meter, and numbers of pinnipeds that flushed into the water.

The method for recording disturbances follows those in Mortenson (1996). Glacier Bay NP would record disturbances on a three-point scale that represents an increasing seal response to the disturbance (Table 6). Glacier Bay will record the time, source, and duration of the disturbance, as well as an estimated distance between the source and haul-out. NMFS would consider only responses falling into Levels 2 and 3 as harassment under the MMPA, under the terms of this proposed authorization.

Glacier Bay NP has complied with the monitoring requirements under the previous authorizations. NMFS posted the 2016 report on our Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm and the results from the previous Glacier Bay NP monitoring reports support our findings that the proposed mitigation measures required under the 2014—2016 Authorizations, provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock. During the last two years of this activity, approximately a third of all observed harbor seals have flushed in response to these activities (37 percent in 2015 and 36 percent in 2016). In 2016, of the 216 harbor seals that were observed: 77 flushed in to the water, 3 became alert but did not move >1 m, and 17 moved >1 m but did not flush into the water. On five occasions, harbor seals were flushed into the water when islands were accessed for gull surveys. In these instances, the vessel approached the island at very slow speed and most of the harbor seals flushed into the water at approximately 50-100 m. In 4 instances, fewer than 25 harbor seals were present, but in 1 instance, 41 harbor seals were observed flushing into the water when NPS first saw them as they rounded a point of land in kayaks accessing Flapjack Island. In 5 instances, harbor seals were observed hauled out and not disturbed due to their distance from the survey areas. In 2015, of the 156 harbor seals that were observed: 57 flushed in to the water, 25 became alert but did not move >1 m, and zero moved >1 m but did not flush into the water. No pups were observed. On two occasions, harbor seals were observed at the study sites in numbers <25 and the islands were accessed for gull surveys. In these instances, the vessel approached the island at very slow speed and most of the harbor seals flushed into water at approximately 200 m (Geikie 8/5/15) and 280 m (Lone, 8/5/15). In one instance, (Lone, 6/11/15) NPS counted 20 harbor seals hauled out during our initial vessel-based monitoring, but once on the island, NPS observed 33 hauled out seals. When NPS realized the number of seals present, they ceased the survey and left the area, flushing 13 seals into the water.

Glacier Bay NP can add to the knowledge of pinnipeds in the proposed action area by noting observations of: (1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and (3) rare or unusual species of marine mammals for agency follow-up. Glacier Bay NP actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting haul out locations to assess trends over time (e.g., Mathews & Pendleton, 2006; Womble et al. 2010, Womble and Gende, 2013b). This monitoring program involves collaborations with biologists from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Glacier Bay NP will continue these collaborations and encourage continued or renewed monitoring of marine mammal species. Additionally, Glacier Bay NP would report vessel-based counts of marine mammals, branded, or injured animals, and all observed disturbances to the appropriate state and federal agencies.

Glacier Bay NP will submit a draft monitoring report to us no later than 90 days after the expiration of the Incidental Harassment Authorization, if issued. The report will include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the Authorization. Glacier Bay NP will submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments on the draft report. If Glacier Bay NP receives no comments from NMFS on the report, NMFS will consider the draft report to be the final report.

The report will describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the proposed project. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The report will provide:

1. A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all research activities.

2. Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals observed throughout all monitoring activities.

3. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals exposed to acoustic or visual stimuli associated with the research activities.

4. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the Authorization and full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring.

In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (e.g., vessel-strike, stampede, etc.), Glacier Bay NP shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following information:

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

• Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);

• 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).

Glacier Bay NP shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Glacier Bay to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Glacier Bay NP may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.

In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead researcher 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 we describe in the next paragraph), Glacier Bay NP will immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above this section. Activities may continue while we review the circumstances of the incident. We will work with Glacier Bay NP to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Glacier Bay NP will report the incident to the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator within 24 hours of the discovery. Glacier Bay NP researchers will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to us. Glacier Bay NP can continue their research activities.

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

In making a negligible impact determination, we consider:

• The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;

• The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment;

• The context in which the takes occur (e.g., impacts to areas of significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative impacts when taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions when added to baseline data);

• The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative to the size of the population);

• Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and

• The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the number or severity of incidental take.

For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, NMFS does not expect Glacier Bay NP's specified activities to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, abandonment of the haul-out area, injury, serious injury, or mortality:

1. The takes from Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance. The effects of the research activities would be limited to short-term startle responses and localized behavioral changes due to the short and sporadic duration of the research activities.

2. The availability of alternate areas for pinnipeds to avoid disturbances from research operations. Anecdotal observations and results from previous monitoring reports also show that the pinnipeds returned to the various sites and did not permanently abandon haul-out sites after Glacier Bay NP conducted their research activities.

3. There is little potential for stampeding events or large-scale flushing events leading to injury, serious injury, or mortality. Researchers would not access the survey sites if Steller sea lions are present. Harbor seals are a species that do not stampede, but flush, and injury or mortality is not anticipated from flushing events. Researchers would approach study sites slowly to provide enough time for any marine mammals present to slowly enter the water without panic.

We do not anticipate that any injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities would occur as a result of Glacier Bay NP's proposed activities and we do not propose to authorize injury, serious injury, or mortality. Harbor seals may exhibit behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the proposed gull research activities to avoid human disturbance. Further, these proposed activities would not take place in areas of significance for marine mammal feeding, resting, breeding, or pupping and would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat. Due to the nature, degree, and context of the behavioral harassment anticipated, we do not expect the activities to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival.

NMFS does not expect pinnipeds to permanently abandon any area surveyed by researchers, as is evidenced by continued presence of pinnipeds at the sites during annual gull monitoring. In summary, NMFS anticipates that impacts to hauled-out harbor seals during Glacier Bay NP's research activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (i.e., up to two hours per visit) and limited intensity (i.e., temporary flushing at most).

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

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

As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that Glacier Bay NP's activities could potentially affect, by Level B harassment only, one species of marine mammal under our jurisdiction. For harbor seals, this estimate is small (3 percent) relative of the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock of harbor seals (7,210 seals, see Table 2).

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

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA also requires us to determine that the taking will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Glacier Bay NP prohibits subsistence harvest of harbor seals within the Park (Catton, 1995). Thus, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Issuance of an MMPA authorization requires compliance with the ESA. No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

In compliance with NOAA policy, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), NMFS preliminarily determined the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the NPS Glacier Bay NP for conducting gull monitoring and research activities from May 1 through September 30, 2017, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).

Glacier Bay NP and/or its designees (holders of the Authorization) are hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) to harass small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on glaucous-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens) within Glacier Bay NP, Alaska.

1. This Authorization is valid from May 1 through September 30, 2017.

2. This Authorization is valid only for research activities that occur at the following locations: Boulder (58°33′18.08″ N.; 136°1′13.36″ W.); Lone (58°43′17.67″ N.; 136°17′41.32″ W.), and Flapjack (58°35′10.19″ N.; 135°58′50.78″ W.) Islands, and Geikie Rock (58°41′39.75″ N.; 136°18′39.06″ W.) in Glacier Bay, Alaska.

3. Species Authorized and Level of Takes.

a. The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to 218 takes of the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina).

b. The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or death of any of the species listed in Condition 3(a) or the taking of any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this Authorization.

c. The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS.

4. General Conditions

A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of Glacier Bay NP, its designees, and field crew personnel (including research collaborators) operating under the authority of this Authorization at all times.

5. Mitigation Measures

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

a. Conduct pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a study site. Prior to deciding to land onshore of Boulder, Lone, or Flapjack Islands or Geikie Rock, the Holder of this Authorization shall use high-powered image stabilizing binoculars before approaching at distances of greater than 500 m (1,640 ft) to determine and document the number, species, and location of hauled out marine mammals. The vessels shall maintain a distance of 328 to 1,640 ft (100 to 500 m) from the shoreline. If the Holder of the Authorization determines that any Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) are present at the study site, the Holder shall not access the island and will not conduct the study at that time.

b. Minimize the potential for disturbance by: (1) Performing controlled and slow ingress to the study site to prevent a flushing; and (2) selecting a pathway of approach farthest from the hauled out harbor seals to minimize disturbance.

c. Monitor for offshore predators at the study sites and shall avoid research activities when killer whales (Orcinus orca) are present.

d. Maintain a quiet working atmosphere, avoid loud noises, and shall use hushed voices in the presence of hauled out pinnipeds.

6. Monitoring

a. NPS and/or its designees shall record the following:

i. Species counts (with numbers of adults/juveniles); and:

ii. Numbers of disturbances, by species and age, according to a three-point scale of intensity (Table 7) including:

iii. Information on the weather, including the tidal state and horizontal visibility.

b. The observer shall note observations of marked or tag-bearing pinnipeds or carcasses, as well as any rare or unusual species of marine mammal.

c. The observer shall note the presence of any offshore predators (date, time, number, and species).

7. Reporting

The holder of this Authorization is required to:

a. Draft Report: Submit a draft monitoring report to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS within 90 days after the Authorization expires. NMFS shall review the Draft Report which is subject to review and comment by NMFS. Glacier Bay NP must address any recommendations made by NMFS in the Final Report prior to submission to NMFS.

b. Final Report: Glacier Bay shall prepare and submit a Final Report to NMFS within 30 days following resolution of any comments on the draft report from NMFS.

8. Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (e.g., vessel-strike, stampede, etc.), The NPS' Glacier Bay NP and/or its designees shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following information:

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

• Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);

• 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).

Glacier Bay NP shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Glacier Bay NP to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Glacier Bay NP may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.

In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the marine mammal observer 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 we describe in the next paragraph), Glacier Bay NP shall immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above this section. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with Glacier Bay NP to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Glacier Bay NP shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator within 24 hours of the discovery. Glacier Bay NP personnel shall provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to us. Glacier Bay NP can continue their survey activities while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

NMFS requests comments on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for Glacier Bay's project activities in AK. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the NPS request for an MMPA authorization.

ONMS serves as the trustee for a network of underwater parks encompassing more than 600,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington state to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. The network includes a system of 13 national marine sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea and Rose Atoll marine national monuments. National marine sanctuaries protect our nation's most vital coastal and marine natural and cultural resources, and through active research, management, and public engagement, sustain healthy environments that are the foundation for thriving communities and stable economies. One of the many ways ONMS ensures public participation in the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries is through the formation of advisory councils. The Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council (council) has been formed to provide advice and recommendations to the Director regarding the relationship of ONMS with the business community. Additional information on the council can be found at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/ac/welcome.html.

Matters to be Considered: The meeting will provide an opportunity for council members to hear news from across the National Marine Sanctuary System and review and comment on program initiatives. For a complete agenda, including times and topics, please visit http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/bac/meetings.html.

Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 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 provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

Title: Ownership and Control Reports, Forms 102/102S, 40/40S, and 71 (Trader and Account Identification Reports) (OMB Control No. 3038-0103). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The final rules 1 created new information collection requirements via §§ 17.01, 18.04, 18.05, and 20.5. Specifically, § 17.01 provides for the filing of Form 102A, Form 102B and Form 71, as follows:

• Pursuant to § 17.01(a), futures commission merchants (“FCMs”), clearing members, and foreign brokers shall identify new special accounts to the Commission on Form 102A;

• pursuant to § 17.01(b), clearing members shall identify volume threshold accounts to the Commission on Form 102B; and

• pursuant to § 17.01(c), omnibus volume threshold account originators and omnibus reportable sub-account originators shall identify reportable sub-accounts to the Commission on Form 71 when requested via a special call by the Commission or its designee.

Additional reporting requirements arise from § 18.04, which results in the collection of information via Form 40 from and regarding traders who own, hold, or control reportable positions; volume threshold account controllers; persons who own volume threshold accounts; reportable sub-account controllers; and persons who own reportable sub-accounts.

Reporting requirements also arise from § 20.5(a), which requires all reporting entities to submit Form 102S for swap counterparty or customer consolidated accounts with reportable positions. In addition, § 20.5(b) requires every person subject to books or records under current § 20.6 to complete a 40S filing after a special call upon such person by the Commission.

In addition to the reporting requirements summarized above, § 18.05 imposes recordkeeping requirements upon: (1) Traders who own, hold, or control a reportable futures or options on futures position; (2) volume threshold account controllers; (3) persons who own volume threshold accounts; (4) reportable sub-account controllers; and (5) persons who own reportable sub-accounts.

With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

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

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of 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.

All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.2

The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

Burden Statement: The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The Department of the Air Force intends to grant the exclusive patent license agreement for the invention described in:

References: Military Freight Traffic Unified Rules Publication-1 (MFTURP-1).

Background: SDDC is always analyzing the effects of mission requirements and carrier capacity to determine projected Open Seasons.

Miscellaneous: This announcement can be accessed via the SDDC Web site at: http://www.sddc.army.mil/.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to receive briefings and updates relating to their current work. The meeting will open with the swearing-in of six new members to the Committee. The Designated Federal Officer (DFO) will then give a status update on the Committee's requests for information. This will be followed with two panel discussions on the following topics: Women's Retention; and Propensity to Serve. The second day of the meeting will open with a panel discussion on Physiological Gender Differences. The Committee will then receive a briefing on the Boxing Programs at the Military Services Academies. The Committee will close out the day with a Public Comment Period.

Agenda: Wednesday, March 22, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:20 p.m.

Thursday, March 23, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

Meeting Accessibility: Meeting location is accessible to the public.

Written Statements: Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the point of contact listed at the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 14, 2017. If a written statement is not received by Tuesday, March 14, 2017, prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the DACOWITS until its next open meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DACOWITS Chair and ensure they are provided to the members of the Committee. If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement, a written statement should be submitted. After reviewing the written comments, the Chair and the DFO will determine who of the requesting persons will be able to make an oral presentation of their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140(d), determination of who will be making an oral presentation is at the sole discretion of the Committee Chair and the DFO, and will depend on time available and if the topics are relevant to the Committee's activities. Five minutes will be allotted to persons desiring to make an oral presentation. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted only on Thursday, March 23, 2017 from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in front of the full Committee. The number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Application for DoD Impact Aid for Children with Severe Disabilities; SD Form 816 and SD 816c; OMB Control Number 0704-0425.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to authorize DoD funds for local educational agencies (LEAs) that educate military dependent students with severe disabilities that meet certain criteria. This application will be requested of military-impacted LEAs to determine if they meet the DoD criteria to receive compensation for the cost of educating military dependent students with severe disabilities.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal governments.

Annual Burden Hours: 400.

Number of Respondents: 50.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 50.

Average Burden per Response: 8 hours.

Frequency: Annually.

The data collection consists of an application and signature sheet that must be submitted by email or fax with the original signature clearly visible on the document. The application is identified as Secretary of Defense Form 816 (SD 816), with SD Form 816C to be used as a continuation page if necessary. In order for DoD to compute the maximum payment amount, the LEA will need to determine and provide the following information in its application. First, the LEA must provide the special education costs of individual military dependent children who have severe disabilities and meet the threshold for payments (at least two military dependents with severe disabilities and the cost per student must be at least five times the national average or three times the state average for students with disabilities, whichever is lower). These averages are provided to the LEAs by DoD in the application guidelines and acknowledged by the LEA in the application. Second, LEAs are required to identify the number of eligible children who were residing on-base or off-base during the previous school year.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB); Standard Form 186; OMB Control Number 0704-0502.

Needs and Uses: The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), 52 U.S.C. 203, requires the Presidential designee (Secretary of Defense) to prescribe official forms, containing an absentee voter registration application, an absentee ballot request application and a backup ballot for use by the States to permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to participate in general, special, primary and runoff elections for Federal office.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Annual Burden Hours: 300,000.

Number of Respondents: 1,200,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 1,200,000.

Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

The authority for the States to collect personal information comes from UOCAVA. The burden for collecting this information resides in the States. The Federal government neither collects nor retains any personal information associated with these forms. The collected information will be used by election officials to process uniformed service members, spouses and overseas citizens who submit their information to register to vote, receive an absentee ballot or cast a write-in ballot. The collected information will be retained by election officials to provide election materials, including absentee ballots, to the uniformed services, their eligible family members and overseas voters during the form's eligibility period provided by State law. No information from the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) is collected or retained by the Federal government. The applicant is required to update and resubmit the information annually, whenever they change their mailing address or as otherwise required by State law. If the information is not submitted annually or whenever they change their mailing address, the applicant may not receive ballots for elections for Federal office in that calendar year.

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

Title of Collection: EDGAR Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.

OMB Control Number: 1894-0009.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 4,015.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 21,475.

Abstract: The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) contain several requirements that grantees maintain certain types of records related to their grants and to report or submit certain information to the Department.

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

Title of Collection: IDEA Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR).

OMB Control Number: 1820-0624.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Federal Government.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 60.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 102,000.

Abstract: In accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(1), not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education, as revised in 2004, each State must have in place a performance plan that evaluates the States efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of Part B and describe how the State will improve such implementation. This plan is called the Part B State Performance Plan (Part B—SPP). In accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(C)(ii) the State shall report annually to the public on the performance of each local educational agency located in the State on the targets in the States performance plan. The State also shall report annually to the Secretary on the performance of the State under the States performance plan. This report is called the Part B Annual Performance Report (Part B—APR). Information Collection 1820-0624 corresponds to 34 CFR 300.600-300.602.

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

Title of Collection: ED-524 Budget Information Non-Construction Programs Form and Instructions.

OMB Control Number: 1894-0008.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 5,400.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 94,500.

Abstract: The ED-524 form and instructions are included in U.S. Department of Education discretionary grant application packages and are needed in order for applicants to submit summary-level budget data by budget category, as well as a detailed budget narrative, to request and justify their proposed grant budgets which are part of their grant applications.

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

Title of Collection: IDEA Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR).

OMB Control Number: 1820-0578.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 56.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 61,600.

Abstract: In accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(1) and 20 U.S.C. 1442, each State lead implementing agency must have in place a performance plan that evaluates the agency's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and describe how the agency will improve implementation. This plan is called the Part C State Performance Plan (Part C SPP). In accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(C)(ii) the lead agency shall report annually to the public on the performance of each early intervention service program located in the State on the targets in the lead agency's performance plan. The lead agency also shall report annually to the Secretary on the performance of the State under the lead agency's performance plan. This report is called the Part C Annual Performance Report (Part C APR).

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

Title of Collection: Rehabilitation Services Administration Grant Re-allotment Form.

OMB Control Number: 1820-0692.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 140.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 13.

Abstract: The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, authorizes the commissioner to re-allot to other grant recipients that portion of a recipient's annual grant that cannot be used. To maximize the use of appropriated funds under the formula grant programs, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has established a re-allotment process for the Basic Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Supported Employment State Grants; Independent Living State Grants, Part B (IL-Part B); Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OB); Client Assistance (CAP) and Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Programs. The authority for the Rehabilitation Services Administration to reallot formula grant funds is found at sections 110(b)(2) (VR), 622(b) (SE), 711(c) (IL-Part B), 752(j)(4) (IL-OB), 112(e)(2) (CAP), and 509(e) (PAIR) of the Act. The information will continue to be used by the Rehabilitation Services Administration State Monitoring and Program Improvement Division to reallot formula grant funds for the awards mentioned above. For each grant award, the grantee will be required to enter the amount of funds being relinquished and/or any additional funds being requested.

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

Title of Collection: U.S. Department of Education Grant Performance Report Form (ED 524B).

OMB Control Number: 1894-0003.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 5,200.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 117,100.

Abstract: The ED 524B form and instructions are used by many ED discretionary grant programs to enable grantees to meet ED deadline dates for submission of performance reports to the Department.

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

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

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http://energy.gov/em/nnmcab/northern-new-mexico-citizens-advisory-board.

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

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

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Susan Clizbe at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://cab.srs.gov/srs-cab.html.

Purpose of Meeting: To develop advice and guidance that promotes research and development leading to the production of biobased fuels and biobased products.

Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include the following:

Public Participation: In keeping with procedures, members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you must contact Dr. Mark Elless at; Email: [email protected] and Roy Tiley at (410) 997-7778 ext. 220; Email: [email protected] at least 5 business days prior to the meeting. Members of the public will be heard in the order in which they sign up at the beginning of the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Co-chairs of the Committee will make every effort to hear the views of all interested parties. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. The Co-chairs will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

Minutes: The summary of the meeting will be available for public review and copying at http://biomassboard.gov/committee/meetings.html.

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-1149.

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

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents and Responses: 259,600 respondents and 259,600 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .166 hours (10 minutes).

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Voluntary.

Total Annual Burden: 43,267 hours.

Total Annual Costs: No Cost.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Responses to feedback instruments will be confidential.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: There is no Privacy Act impact as personally identifiable information (PII) will not be collected.

Needs and Uses: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or change in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management. Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods of assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections.

Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0740.

Title: Section 95.1015, Disclosure Policies.

Form No.: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 26 respondents and 26 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

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

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154 and 303.

Total Annual Burden: 26 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $1,300.

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

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: Manufacturers of Low Power Radio Service (LPRS) used for auditory assistance, health care assistance, and law enforcement tracking purposes must include with each transmitting device the following statement: “This transmitter is authorized by rule under the Low Power Radio Service (47 CFR part 95) and must not cause harmful interference to TV reception or United States Navy SPASUR installations. You do not need an FCC license to operate this transmitter. This transmitter may only be used to provide: Auditory assistance to persons with disabilities, persons who require language translation, or persons in educational settings; health care services to the ill; law enforcement tracking services under agreement with a law enforcement agency; or automated maritime telecommunications system (AMTS) network control communications. Two-way voice communications and all other types of uses not mentioned above are expressly prohibited.”

The reporting requirement contained in Section 95.1015 is necessary to ensure that television stations that may be affected by harmful interference from Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) operations are notified. Manufacturers of LPRS equipment are required to include a statement regarding the use of the equipment. Additionally, prior to operating a LPRS transmitter for AMTS purposes, an AMTS licensee must notify, in writing, each television station that may be affected by such operations, as defined in Section 80.215(h). The notification provided with the station's license application is sufficient to satisfy this requirement if no new television stations would be affected.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections.

Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0126.

Title: Section 73.1820, Station Log.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 15,200 respondents; 15,200 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.017-0.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 15,095 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.1820 requires that each licensee of an AM, FM or TV broadcast station maintain a station log. Each entry must accurately reflect the station's operation. This log should reflect adjustments to operating parameters for AM stations with directional antennas without an approved sampling system; for all stations the actual time of any observation of extinguishment or improper operation of tower lights; and entry of each test of the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) for commercial stations.

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-0863.

Title: Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 848 respondents; 250,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.50 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection action is contained in the Satellite Home Viewer Act, 17 U.S.C. 119. The Satellite Home Viewer Act is an amendment of the Copyright Act; and Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010, Title V of the “American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010,” Public Law 111-175, 124 Stat. 1218 (2010) (STELA).

Total Annual Burden to Respondents: 125,000 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.686 describes a method for measuring signal strength at a household so that the satellite and broadcast industries would have a uniform method for making an actual determination of the signal strength that a household received. The information gathered as part of the Grade B contour signal strength tests will be used to indicate whether a household is “unserved” by over-the-air network signals.

Satellite and broadcast industries making field strength measurements for formal submission to the Commission in rulemaking proceedings, or making such measurements upon the request of the Commission, shall follow the procedure for making and reporting such measurements which shall be included in a report to the Commission and submitted in affidavit form, in triplicate. The report shall contain the following information:

(a) Tables of field strength measurements, which for each measuring location; (b) U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps; (c) All information necessary to determine the pertinent characteristics of the transmitting installation; (d) A list of calibrated equipment used in the field strength survey; (e) A detailed description of the calibration of the measuring equipment, and (f) Terrain profiles in each direction in which measurements were made.

The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.686 also requires satellite and broadcast companies to maintain a written record describing, for each location, factors which may affect the recorded field (i.e., the approximate time or measurement, weather, topography, overhead wiring, heights and types of vegetation, buildings and other structures, the orientation of the measuring location, objects of such shape and size that cause shadows or reflections, signals received that arrived from a direction other than that of the transmitter, survey, list of the measured value field strength, time and date of the measurements and signature of the person making the measurements).

The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.686(e) describes the procedures for measuring the field strength of digital television signals. These procedures will be used to determine whether a household is eligible to receive a distant digital network signal from a satellite television provider, largely rely on existing, proven methods the Commission has already established for measuring analog television signal strength at any individual location, as set forth in Section 73.686(d) of the existing rules, but include modifications as necessary to accommodate the inherent differences between analog and digital TV signals. The new digital signal measurement procedures include provisions for the location of the measurement antenna, antenna height, signal measurement method, antenna orientation and polarization, and data recording.

Therefore, satellite and broadcast industries making field strength measurements shall maintain written records and include the following information: (a) A list of calibrated equipment used in the field strength survey, which for each instrument specifies the manufacturer, type, serial number and rated accuracy, and the date of the most recent calibration by the manufacturer or by a laboratory. Include complete details of any instrument not of standard manufacture; (b) A detailed description of the calibration of the measuring equipment, including field strength meters, measuring antenna, and connecting cable; (c) For each spot at the measuring site, all factors which may affect the recorded field, such as topography, height and types of vegetation, buildings, obstacles, weather, and other local features; (d) A description of where the cluster measurements were made; (e) Time and date of the measurements and signature of the person making the measurements; (f) For each channel being measured, a list of the measured value of field strength (in units of dBμ after adjustment for line loss and antenna factor) of the five readings made during the cluster measurement process, with the median value highlighted.

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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Requirements for the Importation of Nonhuman Primates into the United States (OMB Control No. 0920-0263, Expiration Date, 09/30/2017)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Under the 42 CFR 71.53, CDC collects information pertaining to importers and imported nonhuman primates. This information collection enables CDC to evaluate compliance with pre-arrival of shipment notification requirements and to investigate the number and species of imported nonhuman primates. Also, it enables CDC to determine if adequate measures are being taken for the prevention of exposure to persons and animals during importation.

Since May 1990, CDC has monitored the arrival and/or uncrating of certain shipments of non-human primates imported into the United States. In February 2013, CDC promulgated two regulations pertaining to the importation of nonhuman primates. The first rule, Establishment of User Fees for Filovirus Testing of Nonhuman Primate Liver Samples, outlines a process by which importers can send liver tissues to CDC from primates that die during importation from reasons other than trauma (2/12/2013, Vol.78, No. 29, p. 9828). CDC performs these tests due to the absence of a private sector option. The second rule, Requirements for Importers of Nonhuman Primates, consolidates into 42 CFR 71.53 the requirements previously found in 42 CFR part 71.53 with those found in the Special Permit to Import Cynomolgus, African Green, or Rhesus Monkeys into the United States (2/15/2013, Vol. 78, No. 32/p. 11522). It also rescinded the six-month special-permit requirements for cynomolgus, African green, and rhesus monkeys and extended the time period for registration/permit renewal from 180 days to 2 years, reducing much of the respondent burden. CDC feels these regulatory changes and reporting requirements balance the public health risks posed by the importation of nonhuman primates with the burden imposed on regulating their importation.

All registered importers of non-human primates are required by 42 CFR part 71.53 to maintain certain disease control procedures and keep certain records. Standard business practices likely dictate that importers already keep records on the origin, transportation, and disposition of the nonhuman primates. Thus, CDC asks for information which should already be maintained by the importers and need only be assembled and reported. The estimate of burden hours and costs reflects assembling and reporting only.

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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Customer Surveys Generic Clearance for the National Center for Health Statistics (OMB Control No. 0920-0729, Expiration Date 05/31/2017)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on “the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States.” This is a revision request for a generic approval from OMB to conduct customer surveys over the next three years at an overall burden rate of 4000 hours.

As part of a comprehensive program, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) plans to continue to assess its customers' satisfaction with the content, quality and relevance of the information it produces. NCHS will conduct voluntary customer surveys to assess strengths in agency products and services and to evaluate how well it addresses the emerging needs of its data users. Results of these surveys will be used in future planning initiatives.

The data will be collected using a combination of methodologies appropriate to each survey. These may include: Evaluation forms, mail surveys, focus groups, automated and electronic technology (e.g., email, Web-based surveys), and telephone surveys. Systematic surveys of several groups will be folded into the program. Among these are Federal customers and policy makers, state and local officials who rely on NCHS data, the broader educational, research, and public health community, and other data users. Respondents may include data users who register for and/or attend NCHS sponsored conferences; persons who access the NCHS Web site and the detailed data available through it; consultants; and others. Respondent data items may include (in broad categories) information regarding respondent's gender, age, occupation, affiliation, location, etc., to be used to characterize responses only. Other questions will attempt to obtain information that will characterize the respondents' familiarity with and use of NCHS data, their assessment of data content and usefulness, general satisfaction with available services and products, and suggestions for improvement of surveys, services and products.

In order to capture anticipated additional feedback opportunities, this revision request allows for the potential increase in both respondents and time per response for a total estimated annual burden total of 4,000 hours.

There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate in the survey. The resulting information will be for NCHS internal use.

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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (OMB Control Number 0920-1027, Expiration Date, 8/31/2017)—Revision—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP).

The information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Federal government's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.

This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.

CDC/ATSDR will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

• The collections are voluntary;

• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;

• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;

• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;

• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;

• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency (if released, the agency must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);

• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and

• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.

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

As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.

This is a revision to the previously approved collection to reduce the burden hours from 12,400 to 9,690 hours as a result of the previous usage and anticipated future usage of this Generic Information Collection. Respondents will be screened and selected from Individuals and Households, Businesses, Organizations, and/or State, Local or Tribal Government. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours for this data collection activity are 9,690.

In the Federal Register of January 11, 2017 (82 FR 3333), FDA announced that the joint meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee would be held on March 13-14, 2017. On page 3334, in the first column, under the ADDRESSES caption, the address of the meeting and the phone number in the first six lines is changed to read as follows:

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment.

Background: The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-420; H. Rept. 96-1353) includes the intent of Congress to fund and provide PRC to the Passamaquoddy Tribe. The Passamaquoddy Tribe has two reservations: Indian Township and Pleasant Point. The PRC SDA for the Indian Township reservation is Aroostook County, ME, and Washington County, ME. The PRC SDA for the Pleasant Point reservation is Washington County, ME, south of State Route 9, and Aroostook County, ME.

The IHS currently provides services under regulations codified at 42 CFR part 136, subparts A through C. Subpart C defines a Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) Service Delivery Area (SDA), formerly referred to as a Contract Health Service Delivery Area, as the geographic area within which PRC will be made available by the IHS to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the area. Residence in a PRC SDA by a person who is within the scope of the Indian health program, as set forth in 42 CFR 136.12, creates no legal entitlement to PRC but only potential eligibility for services. Services needed but not available at an IHS/Tribal facility are provided under the PRC program depending on the availability of funds, the person's relative medical priority, and the actual availability and accessibility of alternate resources in accordance with the regulations.

As applicable to the Tribes, these regulations provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRC SDA shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation. 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRC SDA, the Secretary may from time to time, re-designate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRC SDA. The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any re-designation is made. The criteria are as follows:

(1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;

(2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe;

(3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and

(4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC. 42 CFR 136.22(b).

Additionally, the regulations require that any re-designation of a PRC SDA must be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). See 42 CFR 136.22(c). In compliance with this requirement, we are publishing this proposal and requesting public comments.

The Passamaquoddy Tribe is a federally recognized tribe with two separate reservations, Indian Township and Pleasant Point, located approximately 50 miles apart. Each respective reservation elects its own governing body and each reservation has a separate PRC SDA. The Indian Township reservation of the Passamaquoddy Tribe has a PRC SDA consisting of Aroostook and Washington Counties in the State of Maine. The PRC SDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe's reservation at Pleasant Point is Washington County, Maine, south of State Route 9, and Aroostook County, Maine. IHS adopted a PRC SDA for each of the Passamaquoddy Tribe's reservations for the purposes of administering benefits under the IHS PRC program. Thus, members of the Tribe who reside outside of Aroostook and Washington Counties do not reside within the PRC SDA of the Passamaquoddy Tribe and they are currently not eligible for PRC services from the Tribe.

The Passamaquoddy Tribe has a significant number of members who are not residents of Aroostook and Washington Counties. According to Tribal estimates, 257 enrolled Passamaquoddy members reside in Hancock County in the State of Maine and remain actively involved with the Tribe, but they are not currently eligible for PRC care. The Tribe provides direct services to its members by operating a clinic in Washington County.

Under 42 CFR 136.23, those otherwise eligible Indians who do not reside on a reservation but reside within a PRC service delivery area must be either members of the Tribe or maintain close economic and social ties with the Tribe. In this case, in applying the aforementioned PRC service delivery area re-designation criteria required by operative regulations (43 FR 34654), the following findings are made:

1. By expanding, the Tribe estimates the current eligible population will be increased by 257.

2. The Tribe has determined that these 257 individuals are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe.

3. The expanded area, Hancock County, ME, maintains a common boundary with Washington County, ME, the county in which the Tribe's Indian Township reservation is located.

4. The Tribe will use its existing Federal allocation for PRC funds to provide services to the expanded population. No additional financial resources will be allocated by IHS to the Tribe to provide services to Tribal members residing in Hancock County.

Accordingly, the purpose of this Federal Register notice is to notify the public of the proposal to expand the PRC service delivery area of the Passamaquoddy Tribe's Indian Township reservation to include Hancock County in the State of Maine. The proposed notice will expand their current service delivery area to include Hancock County in the State of Maine.

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-2009-0010 in the search box. 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 Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 Nonimmigrant.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-929; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Section 245(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) allows certain qualifying family members who have never held U nonimmigrant status to seek lawful permanent residence or apply for immigrant visas. Before such family members may apply for adjustment of status or seek immigrant visas, the U-1 nonimmigrant who has been granted adjustment of status must file an immigrant petition on behalf of the qualifying family member using Form I-929. Form I-929 is necessary for USCIS to make a determination that the eligibility requirements and conditions are met regarding the qualifying family member.

(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 I-929 is 1,244 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour.

(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 1,244 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 $152,390.

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-2008-0028 in the search box. 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 Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Request.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: G-639; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form G-639 is provided as a convenient means for persons to provide data necessary for identification of a particular record desired under Freedom of Information/Privacy Act (FOIA/PA).

(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 G-639 is 163,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is .25 hours.

(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 40,750 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 $859,450.

The regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., provide that Indian Tribes may designate an agent other than the Tribal chairman for service of notice of proceedings under the Act. See 25 CFR 23.12. The Secretary of the Interior is required to update and publish in the Federal Register as necessary the names and addresses of the designated Tribal agents. This notice is published in exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.

In any involuntary proceeding in a State court where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, and where the identity and location of the child's parent or Indian custodian or Tribe is known, the party seeking the foster-care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child must directly notify the parents, the Indian custodians, and the child's Tribe by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, of the pending child-custody proceedings and their right of intervention. Copies of these notices must be sent to the appropriate Regional Director by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal delivery. See 25 CFR 23.11.

If the identity or location of the child's parents, the child's Indian custodian, or the Tribes in which the Indian child is a member or eligible for membership cannot be ascertained, but there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, notice of the child-custody proceeding must be sent to the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Regional Director (see www.bia.gov). See 25 CFR 23.111.

No notices, except for final adoption decrees, are required to be sent to the BIA Central Office in Washington, DC.

This notice presents, in two different formats, the names and addresses of current designated Tribal agents for service of notice, and includes each designated Tribal agent received by the Secretary of the Interior prior to the date of this publication. Part A, published in this notice, lists designated Tribal agents by region and alphabetically by Tribe within each region. Part A is also available electronically at: http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/HumanServices/index.htm.

Part B is a table that lists designated Tribal agents alphabetically by the Tribal affiliation (first listing American Indian Tribes, then listing Alaska Native Tribes). Part B is only available electronically at: http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/HumanServices/index.htm.

Each format also lists the BIA's contact(s) for each of the twelve regions.

Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 3601 C Street, Suite 1100 Anchorage, Alaska 99503; Phone: (907) 271-4111.