Federal Register Vol. 82, No.56,

The Ragged Ruby planning area encompasses approximately 34,000 acres in the Granite Boulder Creek and Balance Creek subwatersheds that drain into the Middle Fork John Day River. The legal description for the planning area includes Townships 10 and 11 South, Ranges 33 and 34 East, Willamette Meridian, Grant County, Oregon. The full scoping package is available on the Malheur National Forest Web site: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=49392.

The purpose and need for the Ragged Ruby Project was developed by comparing the management objectives and desired conditions in the Malheur and Umatilla Forest Plans to the existing conditions in the Ragged Ruby planning area related to forest and watershed resiliency and function. The purpose and need is to: Maintain and improve landscape resiliency and manage for diverse forest composition, stocking levels, and pattern to maintain healthy ecological function and process within a complex disturbance regime of wildfire, drought, insects, and diseases; promote forest conditions that allow for the reintroduction of fire upon the landscape, thereby creating conditions that are conducive for firefighter safety, resource values, and private lands; improve aquatic resource conditions; improve wildlife habitat; improve one or more of the nine roadless area characteristics (as defined by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule) within the Dixie Butte and Greenhorn Mountain inventoried roadless areas and restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period; and contribute to the social and economic health of those enjoying multiple uses in the Ragged Ruby planning area.

The proposed action includes:

(1) Upland restoration on approximately 9,030 acres. Activities types include dry pine restoration, mixed conifer restoration, aspen restoration, scabland flat bunchgrass restoration, and whitebark pine and western white pine restoration. Upland restoration activities would help restore forest structure, composition, and density toward more resilient vegetative conditions.

(2) Watershed, fisheries, and wildlife restoration that includes ecological riparian treatments (variable density thinning, openings, leave areas, tree tipping, and potential removal within riparian habitat conservation areas) and large wood treatments (placement of trees within streams and floodplains).

(3) Bat gate installation at 2 mine adits using an existing road or pack stock.

(4) Prescribed burning on up to 34,000 acres to restore and maintain an ecosystem that would thrive with the recurring disturbance of wildfire within the planning area. Treated stands would see a combination of burning piled material and underburning. Those stands not mechanically treated would be managed exclusively with the use of prescribed burning. As conditions and stand characteristics allow, natural ignitions within the planning area would be used to meet the objectives of prescribed burning.

(5) Road activities that support implementing upland restoration and other project activities as well as road system changes. Road maintenance and reconstruction for haul would occur on open or temporarily opened roads to provide safe access and adequate drainage. Temporary roads (approximately 10 miles) would be constructed to access some timber harvest units, which would be rehabilitated following use. The following changes to the road system are proposed: decommissioning 1.9 miles of road, closing 6.4 miles of currently open road, confirming the previous administrative closure of 26.7 miles or road, opening 2.8 miles of currently closed road, relocating 0.2 miles of road, and adding 2.5 miles existing roadbed onto system as closed road.

(6) Recreation system changes to improve or maintain quality recreational opportunities by reducing user conflicts on the current trail system, improving access to trail systems, mitigating resource concerns, and providing family friendly and Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessible trails. Seven trails and their associated trailheads would be improved with 3.3 miles of new trail construction, 9.1 miles of trail co-designated on existing roads, 5.1 miles of trails being un-designated, and 18.7 miles of trail remaining on the system.

Preliminary connectivity corridors have been identified between late and old structure stands to allow for movement of old-growth dependent species. The goal of creating “connectivity” is to manage stands in corridors at higher canopy densities when compared to more intensively managed stands located outside of corridors.

The Ragged Ruby Project will also include a variety of project design criteria that serve to mitigate impacts of activities to forest resources, including wildlife, soils, watershed condition, aquatic species, riparian habitat conservation areas, heritage resources, visuals, rangeland, botanical resources, and invasive plants. The proposed action may also include amendments to the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended: dedicated old growth unit changes, reduce satisfactory and/or total cover, removal of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches diameter at breast height, and harvest within late and old structure stands.

The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of these will be the “no action” alternative in which none of the proposed action would be implemented. Additional alternatives may be included in response to issues raised by the public during the scoping process or due to additional concerns for resource values identified by the interdisciplinary team.

The Forest Supervisor of the Malheur National Forest, 431 Patterson Bridge Road, John Day, OR 97845, is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official, I will decide if the proposed action will be implemented. I will document the decision and rationale for the decision in the Record of Decision. I have delegated the responsibility for preparing the draft EIS and final EIS to the District Ranger, Blue Mountain Ranger District.

Based on the purpose and need, the Responsible Official reviews the proposed action, the other alternatives, the environmental consequences, and public comments on the analysis in order to make the following decision: (1) Whether to implement the proposed activities; and if so, how much and at what specific locations; (2) What, if any, specific project monitoring requirements are needed to assure project design criteria and mitigation measures are implemented and effective, and to evaluate the success of the project objectives.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The interdisciplinary team will continue to seek information and comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribal governments, and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed action. There is a collaborative group in the area that the interdisciplinary team will interact with during the analysis process.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.

The US Forest Service is announcing its intent to prepare a SEIS for the Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project. The SEIS will supplement the analysis from the Clear Creek Integrated Restoration FEIS (2015) by providing an updated analysis of the environmental effects. The Clear Creek Integrated Restoration FEIS evaluated the potential effects of four alternatives, including No Action and three action alternatives.

The Nez Perce-Clearwater Forest Supervisor will issue a new ROD after evaluating the SEIS and public comments. An objection period for the new ROD will be provided, consistent with 36 CFR part 218.

The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal. The Nez Perce-Clearwater Forest Supervisor is the responsible official.

Whether to adopt the proposed action, in whole or in part, or another alternative; and what mitigation measures and management requirements will be implemented.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Review project proposals, and

2. Make project recommendations for Title II Funds.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by March 31, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Franklin Pemberton, RAC Coordinator, Colville RAC, 765 South Main Street, Colville, Washington, 99114; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 509-684-7280.

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

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Introduce the newly appointed San Juan RAC members,

2. Project proposal presentations,

3. Public input,

4. Review proposals, and

5. Make project recommendations for Title II funding.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by March 17, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Ann Bond, RAC Coordinator, San Juan Public Lands Center, 15 Burnett Court, Durango, Colorado 81301; by email to [email protected] or via facsimile to 970-375-2331.

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

Background: The Committee was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). It provides advice to the Secretary of Commerce on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and provides advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. For more information about the Committee visit: http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/.

Matters to be Considered: Committee members are expected to continue to discuss the major competitiveness-related topics raised at the previous Committee meetings, including trade and competitiveness; freight movement and policy; trade innovation; regulatory issues; finance and infrastructure; and workforce development. The Committee's subcommittees will report on the status of their work regarding these topics. The agendas may change to accommodate Committee business. The Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services will post the final detailed agendas on its Web site, http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/, at least one week prior to the meeting.

The meetings will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Richard Boll, at (202) 482-1135 or [email protected] five (5) business days before the meeting.

Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before and after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of this meeting must send them to the Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 11014, Washington, DC, 20230, or email to [email protected].

For consideration during the meetings, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meetings, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on April 12, 2017. Comments received after April 12, 2017, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meetings. The minutes of the meetings will be posted on the Committee Web site within 60 days of the meeting.

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

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

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

Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 17-00001.”

A summary of the current application follows.

Applicant: ADM Rice, Inc. and ADM Export Co., 600 White Plains Road #605, Tarrytown, New York, 10591.

Contact: Andrew Shoyer, Partner—Sidley Austin LLP; Telephone: (202) 736-8326.

Application No.: 17-00001.

Date Deemed Submitted: March 10, 2017.

Summary: ADM Rice, Inc. and ADM Export Co. seek a Certificate of Review to engage in the Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation described below in the following Export Trade and Export Markets:

Products: ADM Rice, Inc. and ADM Export Co. propose to export under the Certificate, directly and through other suppliers, rice and rice products, including but not limited to: Harvest rice; rough rice; brown rice; milled, under milled, and unpolished rice; coated rice; oiled rice; enriched rice; rice bran; polished rice; head rice; broken rice; second head rice; brewers rice; screenings; and rice flour; but not wild rice. This includes U.S. Calrose, U.S. Akitakomachi, Calhikari, U.S. Koshihikari, U.S. Mochi, and U.S. M-401. Listed below are the North American Industry Classification System codes at the six-digit level for the rice products that ADM Rice, Inc. and ADM Export Co. intend to export:

Services: All services related to the export of Products.

Technology Rights: All intellectual property rights associated with Products or Services, including, but not limited to: Patents, trademarks, services marks, trade names, copyrights, neighboring (related) rights, trade secrets, know-how, and confidential databases and computer programs.

Export Trade Facilitation Services: Services to facilitate the export of Products, including but not limited to: Consulting and trade strategy; converting harvest rice to marketable finished rice products via the drying, storage, milling and packaging process for export; arranging and coordinating delivery of products to port of export; arranging for inland and/or marine transportation; allocating products to vessel; arranging for storage space at port; arranging for warehousing, stevedoring, wharfage, handling, inspection, fumigation and freight forwarding; insurance and financing; documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; sales and marketing; export brokerage; foreign marketing and analysis; foreign market development; overseas advertising and promotion; product-related research and design based upon foreign buyer and consumer preferences; inspection and quality control; shipping and export management; export licensing; provisions of overseas sales and distribution facilities and overseas sales staff; legal, accounting, and tax assistance; development and application of management information systems; trade show exhibitions; professional services in the area of government relations and assistance with federal and state export assistance programs; invoicing foreign buyers; collecting payment for products; and arranging for payment of applicable commissions and fees.

The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands).

To engage in Export Trade in the Export Markets, ADM Rice, Inc. and ADM Export Co. may:

1. Exchange information with Suppliers or Export Intermediaries individually regarding the availability of Products for export, prices of Products for sale in the Export Markets, and coordinating the export of Products to Export Markets;

2. Process other Suppliers' harvest rice to marketable finished Products for Export Markets via drying, storage, milling, and packaging processes;

3. Solicit orders for the export of Products from potential foreign distributors and purchasers in Export Markets;

4. Prepare and submit offers of Products to potential foreign distributors, purchasers, and other entities for sale in Export Markets;

5. Establish the price and quantity of Products for sale in Export Markets and set other terms for any export sale;

6. Negotiate and enter into agreements for sale of Products in Export Markets;

7. Enter into agreements to purchase Products from one or more Suppliers to fulfill specific export sales obligations;

8. Apply for and utilize government export assistance and incentive programs; and

9. Meet with Suppliers or other entities periodically to discuss general matters specific to the activities approved in this Certificate (not related to price and supply arrangements between ADM Rice, Inc. and ADM Export Co. and the individual Suppliers) such as relevant facts concerning the Export Markets (e.g., demand conditions, transportation costs and prices in the export markets), or the possibility of joint marketing, bidding or selling arrangements in the Export Markets.

“Supplier” means a person who mills, produces, provides, markets, or sells Products, Services and/or Technology Rights.

“Export Intermediary” means a person who acts as a distributor, representative, sales or marketing agent, joint marketer, or broker, or who performs similar functions.

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

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

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

Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the amended Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 99-11A05.”

Applicant: CAEA, 4800 Sisk Road, Modesto, CA 95356.

Contact: Bill Morecraft, Chairman, Telephone: (916) 446-8537.

Application No.: 99-11A05.

Date Deemed Submitted: March 13, 2017.

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

CAEA's proposed amendment of its Certificate would result in the following Members list:

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, providing that certain findings are made and the necessary prescriptions are established.

The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals may be allowed only 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 (LOA) 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, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

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 July 21, 2014, NMFS received a request from Chevron for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and pile removal associated with the WMEP in San Francisco Bay, California. The project was delayed due to funding constraints. Chevron submitted a revised version of the request on November 16, 2016, which was deemed adequate and complete on January 12, 2017. Chevron proposes to undertake the WMEP in order to comply with current Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards (MOTEMS) requirements and to improve safety and efficiency at the Long Wharf. Construction would start in 2018, and be complete by the fourth quarter of 2022. Therefore, Chevron expects to request additional IHAs in association with this multi-year project. The effective dates for this first proposed IHA would be from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving during pile removal and installation during the four-year construction period is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in Level B (behavioral) harassment of marine mammals. However, only impact driving will occur during 2018 and would be covered under the proposed IHA. Species expected to occur in the area and for which authorization is requested include California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) and Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina).

The Chevron's Richmond Refinery Long Wharf (Long Wharf) is the largest marine oil terminal in California. Its operations are regulated primarily by the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) through a State Lands lease, Article 5 of CSLC regulations, and MOTEMS (California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 31F). The Long Wharf has existed in its current location since the early 1900s (Figure 1-1 in Application). The Berth 2 fender system (timber pile and whaler) was designed and installed in 1940. Marine loading arms, gangways, and fender systems at Berths 1, 3 and 4 were installed in 1972. The Berth 4 fender panels were replaced in 2011 and the Berth 1 fender panels were replaced in 2012. The existing configuration of these systems have limitations to accepting more modern, fuel efficient vessels with shorter parallel mid-body hulls and in some cases do not meet current MOTEMS requirements.

The purpose of the proposed WMEP is to comply with current MOTEMS requirements and to improve safety and efficiency at the Long Wharf. To meet MOTEMS requirements, the fendering system at Berth 2 is being updated and the Berth 4 loading platform will be seismically retrofitted to stiffen the structure and reduce movement of the Long Wharf in the event of a level 1 or 2 earthquake. Safety will be improved by replacing gangways and fire monitors. Efficiency at the Long Wharf will be improved by updating the fender system configuration at Berth 4 to accommodate newer, more fuel efficient vessels and thus reduce idling time for vessels waiting to berth. Further, efficiency will be improved by updating the fender system at Berth 1 to accommodate barges, enabling balanced utilization across Berths 1, 2, and 3.

Project construction would start in 2018, and be completed by the fourth quarter of 2022. Pile driving activities would be timed to occur within the standard NMFS work windows for listed fish species (June 1 through November 30) in those four years. The effective date for the first proposed IHA would be from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. Over the course of the multi-year project 249 piles of various sizes will be installed via impact and vibratory driving; 161 piles will be removed via vibratory removal; and 209 driving days are planned. During the first year of construction covered under this proposed IHA, eight 24-inch concrete piles would be installed by impact driving over 4 workdays at Berth 2.

The Long Wharf is located in San Francisco Bay (the Bay) just south of the eastern terminus of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (RSRB) in Contra Costa County. The wharf is located in the northern portion of the Central Bay, which is generally defined as the area between the RSRB, Golden Gate Bridge, and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The South Bay is located south of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. San Pablo Bay extends north of the RSRB.

The complete multi-year project would involve modifications at four berths (Berths 1, 2, 3, and 4) as shown in Figure 1-1 in the Application. Proposed modifications to the Long Wharf include replacing gangways and cranes, adding new mooring hooks and standoff fenders, adding new dolphins and catwalks, and modifying the fire water system at Berths 1, 2, 3 and/or 4, as well as the seismic retrofit to the Berth 4 loading platform. The type and numbers of piles to be installed, as well as those that will be removed, are summarized in Table 1-1 in the Application and an overview of the modifications at Berths 1 to 4 are shown in Figure 1-2 in the Application.

The combined modifications to Berths 1-4 would require the installation of 141 new concrete piles to support new and replacement equipment and their associated structures. The Berth 4 loading platform would add eight, 60-inch diameter steel piles as part of the seismic retrofit.

The project would also add four clusters of 13 composite piles each (52 total) as markers and protection of the new batter (driven at an angle) piles on the east side of the Berth 4 retrofit. The project would remove 106 existing timber piles, two existing 18‐inch and two existing 24‐inch concrete piles. A total of 12 24-inch temporary steel piles would also be installed and removed during the seismic retrofit of Berth 4. The modifications at each berth are summarized below.

Modifications at Berth 1 include the following:

• Replace gangway to accommodate barges and add a new raised fire monitor.

• Construct a new 24′ × 20′ mooring dolphin and hook to accommodate barges.

• Construct a new 24′ × 25′ breasting dolphin and 13′ × 26′ breasting point with standoff fenders to accommodate barges.The new breasting dolphin will require removal of an existing catwalk and two piles and moving a catwalk to a slightly different location to maintain access to currently existing dolphins. A new catwalk will be installed to provide access to the new breasting dolphin.

• A portion of the existing gangway will be removed. The remaining portion is used for other existing services located on its structure.

Much of this work will be above the water or on the deck of the terminal. The mooring dolphin and hook, breasting dolphin, and new gangway will require installation of 42 new 24‐inch square concrete piles using impact driving methods.

Modifications at Berth 2 include the following:

• Install new gangway to replace portable gangway and add a new elevated fire monitor.

• Replace one bollard with a new hook.

• Install four new standoff fenders (to replace timber fender pile system).

• Replace existing auxiliary and hose cranes and vapor recovery crane to accommodate the new standoff fenders.

• Remove the existing timber fender pile system along the length of the Berth (~650 ft.)

• Three (3) existing brace piles (22-inch square concrete jacketed timber piles) would be removed by cutting below the mud line if possible.

These modifications will require the installation of 51 new 24-inch square concrete piles, using impact driving methods, to support the gangway, standoff fenders, hose crane, and auxiliary crane. To keep Berth 2 operational during construction, four temporary fenders will be installed, supported by 36 temporary 14-inch H-piles driven using vibratory methods. It is expected that the H-piles would largely sink under their own weight and would require very little driving. The H-piles and temporary fenders will be removed once the permanent standoff fenders are complete. The auxiliary and hose cranes are being replaced with cranes with longer reach to accommodate the additional distance of the new standoff fenders. The new vapor recovery crane would be mounted on an existing pedestal and not require in‐water work.

Modifications at Berth 3 include the following:

• Install new fixed gangway to replace portable gangway and add a new raised fire monitor. The gangway would be supported by four, 24-inch square concrete piles. This would be the only in-water work for modifications at Berth 3.

Modifications at Berth 4 include the following:

• Install two new 36′ × 20′ dolphins with standoff fenders (two per dolphin) and two catwalks.

• Seismically retrofit the Berth 4 loading platform including bolstering and relocation of piping and electrical facilities.

The new fenders would add 44 new 24-inch square concrete piles.

The seismic retrofit would structurally stiffen the Berth 4 Loading Platform under seismic loads. This will require cutting holes in the concrete decking and driving eight, 60-inch diameter hollow steel batter piles, using impact pile driving. To accommodate the new retrofit, an existing sump will be replaced with a new sump and two, 24-inch square concrete piles will be removed or cut to the “mudline.” The engineering team has determined that to drive the 60-inch batter piles, twelve temporary steel piles, 24 inches in diameter, will be needed to support templates for the angled piles during driving. Two templates are required, each 24 feet by 4 feet and supported by up to six 24-inch steel pipe piles. The templates will be above water. The project would also add 4 clusters of 13 composite piles each (52 total composite piles) as markers and protection of the new batter piles on the east side of the retrofit. See Table 1 for pile summary information.

Note that the proposed IHA covers actions occurring during 2018 only. These actions include only the installation of eight 24-inch concrete piles by impact hammer driving over four workdays. These piles would replace existing auxiliary and hose cranes and vapor recovery crane at Berth 2. Impact installation would occur utilizing a DelMag D62 22 or similar diesel hammer, producing approximately 165,000 ft lbs maximum energy (may not need full energy) over a duration of approximately 20 minutes per pile.

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

Although 35 species of marine mammals can be found off the coast of California, few species venture into San Francisco Bay, and only Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), and harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) make the Bay a permanent home. Small numbers of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) are regularly sighted in the Bay during their yearly migration, though most sightings tend to occur in the Central Bay near the Golden Gate Bridge. Two other species that may occasionally occur within San Francisco Bay include the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus).

The Pacific harbor seal is one of five subspecies of Phoca vitulina, or the common harbor seal. They are a true seal, with a rounded head and visible ear canal, distinct from the eared seals, or sea lions, which have a pointed head and an external ear. Although generally solitary in the water, harbor seals come ashore at “haul-outs”—shoreline areas where pinnipeds congregate to rest, socialize, breed, and molt—that are used for resting, thermoregulation, birthing, and nursing pups. Haul-out sites are relatively consistent from year to year (Kopec and Harvey 1995), and females have been recorded returning to their own natal haul-out when breeding (Green et al., 2006). The nearest haul-out site to the project site is Castro Rocks, approximately 650 meters north of the northernmost point on the Long Wharf.

The haul-out sites at Mowry Slough (~55 km distant from project site), in the South Bay, Corte Madera Marsh (~8 km distant) and Castro Rocks (~650 m distant), in the northern portion of the Central Bay, and Yerba Buena Island (~12 km distant) in the Central Bay, support the largest concentrations of harbor seals within the San Francisco Bay. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) conducted marine mammal surveys before and during seismic retrofit work on the RSRB in northern San Francisco Bay. The RSRB is located north of the project site, The surveys included extensive monitoring of marine mammals at points throughout the Bay. Although the study focused on harbor seals hauled out at Castro Rocks and Red Rock Island near the RSRB, all other observed marine mammals were recorded. Monitoring took place from May 1998 to February 2002 (Green et al., 2002.) and determined that at least 500 harbor seals populate San Francisco Bay. This estimate agrees with previous seal counts in San Francisco Bay, which ranged from 524 to 641 seals from 1987 to 1999 (Goals Project 2000).

Although births of harbor seals have not been observed at Corte Madera Marsh and Yerba Buena Island, a few pups have been seen at these sites. The main pupping areas in the San Francisco Bay are at Mowry Slough and Castro Rocks (Caltrans 2012). Seals haul out year-round on Castro Rocks during medium to low tides; few low tide sites are available within San Francisco Bay. The seals at Castro Rocks are habituated, to a degree, to some sources of human disturbance such as large tanker traffic and the noise from vehicle traffic on the bridge, but often flush into the water when small boats maneuver close by or when people work on the bridge (Kopec and Harvey 1995). Long-term monitoring studies have been conducted at the largest harbor seal colonies in Point Reyes National Seashore (~45 km west of the project site on Pacific coast) and Golden Gate National Recreation Area (~15 km southwest of the project site) since 1976. Castro Rocks and other haul-outs in San Francisco Bay are part of the regional survey area for this study and have been included in annual survey efforts. Between 2007 and 2012, the average number of adults observed at Castro Rocks ranged from 126 to 166 during the breeding season (March through May) and from 92 to 129 during the molting season (June through July) (Truchinski et al., 2008, Flynn et al., 2009, Codde et al., 2010, Codde et al., 2011, Codde et al. 2012, Codde and Allen 2013).

The California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) belongs to the family Otariidae or “eared seals,” referring to the external ear flaps not shared by other pinniped families. While California sea lions forage and conduct many activities within the water, they also use haul-outs. California sea lions breed in Southern California and along the Channel Islands during the spring.

In the Bay, sea lions haul out primarily on floating docks at Pier 39 in the Fisherman's Wharf area of the San Francisco Marina, approximately 12.5 km southwest of the project site. The California sea lions usually arrive at Pier 39 in August after returning from the Channel Islands (Caltrans 2013). In addition to the Pier 39 haul-out, California sea lions haul out on buoys and similar structures throughout the Bay. They are seen swimming off mainly the San Francisco and Marin County shorelines within the Bay but may occasionally enter the project area to forage. Over the monitoring period for the RSRB, monitors sighted California sea lions on 90 occasions in the northern portion of the Central Bay and at least 57 times in the Central Bay. No pupping activity has been observed at this site or at other locations within the San Francisco Bay (Caltrans 2012).

Although there is little information regarding the foraging behavior of the California sea lion in the San Francisco Bay, they have been observed foraging on a regular basis in the shipping channel south of Yerba Buena Island. Because California sea lions forage over a wide range in San Francisco Bay, it is possible that a limited number of individuals would be incidentally harassed during construction.

The harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) is a member of the Phocoenidae family. They generally occur in groups of two to five individuals, and are considered to be shy, relatively nonsocial animals.

In prior years, harbor porpoises were observed primarily outside of San Francisco Bay. The few harbor porpoises that entered did not venture far into the Bay. No harbor porpoises were observed during marine mammal monitoring conducted before and during seismic retrofit work on the RSRB. In recent years, there have been increasingly common observations of harbor porpoises within San Francisco Bay. According to observations by the Golden Gate Cetacean Research team, as part of their multi- year assessment, approximately 650 harbor porpoises have been observed in the San Francisco Bay, and up to 100 may occur on a single day (Golden Gate Cetacean Research 2017). In San Francisco Bay, harbor porpoises are concentrated in the vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge (approximately 12 km southwest of the project site) and Angel Island (5.5 km southwest), with lesser numbers sighted in the vicinity of Alcatraz (11 km south) and west of Treasure Island (10 km southeast) (Keener 2011). Because this species may venture into the Bay east of Angel Island, there is a slight chance that a small number of individuals could occur in the vicinity of the proposed project.

Gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) are large baleen whales. They are one of the most frequently seen whales along the California coast, easily recognized by their mottled gray color and lack of dorsal fin. They feed in northern waters primarily off the Bering, Chukchi, and western Beaufort seas during the summer, before heading south to the breeding and calving grounds off Mexico over the winter. Between December and January, late-stage pregnant females, adult males, and immature females and males will migrate southward. The northward migration peaks between February and March. During this time, recently pregnant females, adult males, immature females, and females with calves move north to the feeding grounds (NOAA 2003). A few individuals will enter into the San Francisco Bay during their northward migration.

RSRB project monitors recorded 12 living and 2 dead gray whales, all in either the Central Bay or San Pablo Bay, and all but 2sightings occurred during the months of April and May (Winning 2008). One gray whale was sighted in June and one in October (the specific years were unreported). The Oceanic Society has tracked gray whale sightings since they began returning to the Bay regularly in the late 1990s. The Oceanic Society data show that all age classes of gray whales are entering the Bay and that they enter as singles or in groups of up to five individuals. However, the data do not distinguish between sightings of gray whales and number of individual whales (Winning 2008). It is possible that a small number of gray whales enter the Bay in any given year, typically from March to May. However, this is outside of the June to November window when pile driving would occur.

Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) have been reported at Año Nuevo Island between Santa Cruz and Half Moon Bay and at the Farallon Islands about 48 km off the coast of San Francisco (Fuller 2012). Two studies of Steller sea lion distribution did not detect individuals in San Francisco Bay. The SF Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report, Appendix 2-1 contains one reference to Steller sea lions in the San Francisco Bay, stating that since 1989, several hundred California sea lions have congregated in the winter on docks at Pier 39, which are on rare occasions joined by a few Steller sea lions (Cohen 2010). Over a 2-year period from 2010-2012, 16 Steller sea lions were sighted in the Bay from land or from the Golden Gate Bridge (GGCR, 2012) This species is an uncommon visitor to San Francisco Bay and is not expected to occur in the project area during construction. As a result, this species is not considered further.

The range of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) has expanded northward along the Pacific Coast since the 1982-1983 El Niño (Carretta et al., 2013; Wells and Baldridge 1990). They now occur as far north as the San Francisco Bay region and have been observed along the coast in Half Moon Bay, San Mateo, Ocean Beach in San Francisco, and Rodeo Beach in Marin County. Observations indicate that bottlenose dolphin occasionally enter San Francisco Bay, sometimes foraging for fish in Fort Point Cove, just east of the Golden Gate Bridge (Golden Gate Cetacean Research 2014). While individuals of this species occasionally enter San Francisco Bay, observations indicate that they remain in proximity to the Golden Gate near the mouth of the Bay and would not be within the project area during construction. As a result, this species is not considered further.

Table 2 lists the marine mammal species with the potential for occurrence in the vicinity of the project during the project timeframe and summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance. None of these species are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, they are not listed as depleted or as strategic stocks under the MMPA. Section 3 and 4 of Chevron's application contains summaries of marine mammal species' status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, behavior and life history, and auditory capabilities. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/) for generalized species accounts. NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports are also available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, and provide more detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance.

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 an analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analyses and Determination section will consider the content of this section, the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section, and the 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.

Impact pile driving may create underwater noise at levels that could injure or behaviorally disturb marine mammals. In order to assess the level of impacts of sound on marine mammals it is necessary to have a basic understanding of underwater sound characteristics and potential effects. A brief overview is provided below.

Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate (decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal (μPa). One pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that all underwater sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 1 µPa.

Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse, and is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.

When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.

Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction). A number of sources contribute to ambient sound, including the following (Richardson et al., 1995):

• Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of naturally occurring ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band during heavy surf conditions.

• Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the water surface can become an important component of total noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times.

• Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz.

• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft), dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate rapidly (Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from identifiable anthropogenic sources other than the activity of interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is sometimes termed background sound, as opposed to ambient sound.

The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.

In-water construction activities associated with the project would include impact pile driving. Underwater sounds produced by pile driving fall into one of two general sound types: Impulsive and non-impulsive (defined in the following). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please see Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts. Only impulsive sound is described as part of this notice of proposed IHA.

Impulsive sound sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients (ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005) and occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Impulsive sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.

Impact hammers used as part of the proposed project operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper 2005).

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals, and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess these potential effects, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten 1999; Au and Hastings 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al., (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. The lower and/or upper frequencies for some of these functional hearing groups have been modified from those designated by Southall et al., (2007), and the revised generalized hearing ranges are presented in the new Guidance. The functional hearing groups and the associated frequencies are indicated in Table 3 below.

Potential Effects of Pile Driving Sound—The effects of sounds from pile driving might result in one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). The effects of pile driving on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including the size, type, and depth of the animal; the depth, intensity, and duration of the pile driving sound; the depth of the water column; the substrate of the habitat; the standoff distance between the pile and the animal; and the sound propagation properties of the environment. Impacts to marine mammals from pile driving activities are expected to result primarily from acoustic pathways. As such, the degree of effect is intrinsically related to the received level and duration of the sound exposure, which are in turn influenced by the distance between the animal and the source. The further away from the source, the less intense the exposure should be. The substrate and depth of the habitat affect the sound propagation properties of the environment. Shallow environments are typically more structurally complex, which leads to rapid sound attenuation. In addition, substrates that are soft (e.g., sand) would absorb or attenuate the sound more readily than hard substrates (e.g., rock) which may reflect the acoustic wave. Soft porous substrates would also likely require less time to drive the pile, and possibly less forceful equipment, which would ultimately decrease the intensity of the acoustic source.

In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species would be expected to result from physiological and behavioral responses to both the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada et al., 2008). The type and severity of behavioral impacts are more difficult to define due to limited studies addressing the behavioral effects of impulsive sounds on marine mammals. Potential effects from impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973).

Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects—Marine mammals exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is defined as “a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level” (NMFS, 2016). The amount of threshold shift is customarily expressed in decibels (ANSI 1995, Yost 2007). A TS can be permanent (PTS) or temporary (TTS). PTS is a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS 2016). TTS is a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS 2016).

Marine mammals depend on acoustic cues for vital biological functions (e.g., orientation, communication, finding prey, avoiding predators); thus, TTS may result in reduced fitness in survival and reproduction. However, this depends on the frequency and duration of TTS, as well as the biological context in which it occurs. TTS of limited duration, occurring in a frequency range that does not coincide with that used for recognition of important acoustic cues, would have little to no effect on an animal's fitness. Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. PTS constitutes injury, but TTS does not (Southall et al., 2007). The following subsections discuss in somewhat more detail the possibilities of TTS, PTS, and non-auditory physical effects.

Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. In terrestrial mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends.

Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts.

Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis)) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)) exposed to a limited number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (e.g., Finneran, 2016; Finneran et al., 2002; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010, 2013; Nachtigall et al., 2004; Kastaket et al., 2005; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et al., 2011). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2016). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species. There are no data available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al., (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), and Finneran (2016).

Permanent Threshold Shift—When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases, there can be total or partial deafness, while in other cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter 1985). There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal. However, given the possibility that mammals close to a sound source might incur TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some individuals might incur PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single exposures to a level well above that causing TTS onset might elicit PTS.

Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008).

PTS onset acoustic thresholds for marine mammals have not been directly measured and must be extrapolated from available TTS onset measurements. Thus, based on cetacean measurements from TTS studies (see Southall et al., 2007; Finneran, 2015; Finneran, 2016 (found in Appendix A of the Guidance)) a threshold shift of 6 dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability and is typically the minimum amount of threshold shift that can be differentiated in most experimental conditions (Finneran et al., 2000; Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002).

Measured peak underwater source levels from impact pile driving can be as high as 214 dB re 1 µPa (Laughlin 2011). Although no marine mammals have been shown to experience TTS or PTS as a result of being exposed to pile driving activities, captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to strong-pulsed sounds (Finneran et al., 2000, 2002, 2005). The animals tolerated high received levels of sound before exhibiting aversive behaviors. Experiments on a beluga whale showed that exposure to a single watergun impulse at a received level of 207 kilopascal (kPa) (30 psi) peak-to-peak (p-p), which is equivalent to 228 dB p-p, resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively. Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level within four minutes of the exposure (Finneran et al., 2002). Although the source level of pile driving from one hammer strike is expected to be much lower than the single watergun impulse cited here, animals being exposed for a prolonged period to repeated hammer strikes could receive more sound exposure in terms of sound exposure level (SEL) than from the single watergun impulse (estimated at 188 dB re 1 μPa2-s) in the aforementioned experiment (Finneran et al., 2002). However, in order for marine mammals to experience TTS or PTS, the animals have to be close enough to be exposed to high intensity sound levels for a prolonged period.

Non-auditory Physiological Effects—Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007). Studies examining such effects are limited. In general, little is known about the potential for pile driving to cause auditory impairment or other physical effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short distances from the sound source and to activities that extend over a prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) or any meaningful quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be affected in those ways. Marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance of pile driving, including some odontocetes and some pinnipeds, are especially unlikely to incur auditory impairment or non-auditory physical effects. Given the modest number of piles that will be driven, limited driving time per pile, short duration of the project, relatively low sound source levels, and small Level A (injury) harassment zones, NMFS is confident that marine mammals would not experience auditory or non-acoustic physiological impacts.

Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g., Richardson et al.,1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al., (2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.

Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that habituation is appropriately considered as a “progressive reduction in response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor beneficial,” rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. Behavioral state may affect the type of response as well. For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals showed pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources (typically seismic guns or acoustic harassment devices, but also including pile driving) have been varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds 2002; Thorson and Reyff 2006; see also Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007).

With both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of pile driving could result in temporary, short-term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson et al., 1995): Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing (cetaceans only), 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 where sound sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haul-outs or rookeries). Pinnipeds may increase the amount of time spent hauled out, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). Since pile driving would likely only occur for a few hours a day, over a short period, it is unlikely to result in permanent displacement. Any potential impacts from pile driving activities could be experienced by individual marine mammals, but would not be likely to cause population level impacts, or affect the long-term fitness of the species.

The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on growth, survival, or reproduction include:

• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);

• Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and

• Cessation of feeding or social interaction.

The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007).

An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; Moberg 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an animal's fitness.

Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha 2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated with stress (Romano et al., 2004).

The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.

Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be classified as “distress.” In addition, any animal experiencing TTS would likely also experience stress responses (NRC 2003).

Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking, or interfering with, a marine mammal's ability to hear other sounds. Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher levels. Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, sound could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions. Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. If the coincident (masking) sound were man-made, it could be potentially harassing if it disrupted hearing-related behavior. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.

The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. Because sound generated from in-water pile driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey sound. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the sound band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).

Masking has the potential to impact species at the population or community levels as well as at individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent research suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and that most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, such as those from vessel traffic, pile driving, and dredging activities, contribute to the elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.

The most intense underwater sounds in the proposed action are those produced by impact pile driving. Given that the energy distribution of pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, sound from these sources would likely be within the audible range of marine mammals present in the project area. Impact pile driving activity is relatively short-term, with rapid pulses occurring for approximately twenty minutes per pile.

The proposed project would result in small net increase in bay fill of approximately 0.01 acre of benthic habitat due to the placement of piles. The piles would generally be placed within the existing footprint of the Long Wharf. This would not have a measurable influence on habitat for marine mammals in the Bay. A temporary, small-scale loss of foraging habitat may occur for marine mammals if marine mammals leave the area during pile driving activities. Acoustic energy created during pile replacement work would have the potential to disturb fish within the vicinity of the pile replacement work. As a result, the affected area could have a temporarily decreased foraging value to marine mammals. During pile driving, high noise levels may exclude fish from the vicinity of pile driving; Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish will relocate to avoid areas of damaging noise energy. An analysis of potential noise output of the proposed project indicates that the distance from underwater pile driving at which noise has the potential to cause temporary hearing loss in fish ranges from approximately 10 to 158 m (32 ft to 520 ft) from pile driving activity, depending on the type of pile. Therefore, if fish leave the area of disturbance, pinniped foraging habitat may have temporarily decreased foraging value when piles are driven.

The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown. However, the affected area represents an extremely small portion of the total area within foraging range of marine mammals that may be present in the project area.

As such, the main impact associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as discussed previously in this document. The most likely impact to marine mammal habitat occurs from pile driving effects on likely marine mammal prey (i.e., fish) near the project location, and minor impacts to the immediate substrate during installation and removal of piles during the dock construction project.

Effects on Potential Prey—Construction activities would produce impulsive sounds. Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009) and are therefore not directly comparable with the proposed project. Sound pulses at received levels of 160 dB may cause subtle changes in fish behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species from the proposed project are expected to be minor and temporary due to the relatively short timeframe of four days of pile driving activities for a total of 160 minutes that would occur under the proposed IHA.

The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated.

Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat—San Francisco Bay is classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The EFH provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act are designed to protect fisheries habitat from being lost due to disturbance and degradation. The act requires implementation of measures to conserve and enhance EFH. San Francisco Bay, including the area of the project, is classified as EFH for 20 species of commercially important fish and sharks that are federally managed under three fisheries management plans (FMPs): Coastal Pelagic, Pacific Groundfish, and Pacific Coast Salmon (Table 9-1 in the Application). The Pacific Coast Salmon FMP includes Chinook salmon.

In addition to EFH designations, San Francisco Bay is designated as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for various fish species within the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagic FMPs, as this estuarine system serves as breeding and rearing grounds important to these fish stocks. A number of these fish species are prey species for pinnipeds.

Given the short duration of increased underwater noise levels and small project footprint associated with the proposed project, there is not likely to be a permanent, adverse effect on EFH. Therefore, the project is not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on marine mammal foraging habitat.

Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in San Francisco Bay. While the proposed project would result in a small net increase in Bay fill of approximately 0.01 acre of benthic foraging habitat, this would not have a measurable influence on habitat for marine mammals in the Bay.

In summary, given the short duration of sound associated with individual pile driving events and the relatively small area that would be affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

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.

Harassment is the primary means of take 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 for select species in 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.

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

Sound Thresholds—NMFS uses sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces underwater sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a “take” by harassment might occur. On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance) (81 FR 51694) (available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. As will be discussed below, NMFS has revised PTS (and TTS) onset acoustic thresholds for impulsive and non-impulsive sound as part of its new acoustic guidance. The Guidance does not address Level B harassment; therefore, NMFS uses the current acoustic exposure criteria to determine exposure to underwater noise sound pressure levels for Level B harassment (Table 4).

During the installation of piles, the project has the potential to increase airborne noise levels. Airborne pile-driving RMS noise levels above the NMFS airborne noise thresholds are not expected to extend to the Castro Rocks haul-out site, which is located 650 m north of Long Wharf. In addition, the Castro Rocks haul out is subject to high levels of background noise from the Richmond Bridge, ongoing vessel activity at the Long Wharf, ferry traffic, and other general boat traffic. Any pinnipeds that surface in the area over which the airborne noise thresholds may be exceeded would have already been exposed to underwater noise levels above the applicable thresholds and thus would not result in an additional incidental take. Airborne noise is not considered further.

Source Levels—Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. In order to establish distances to PTS and behavioral harassment isopleths, the sound source level associated with a specific pile driving activity must be measured directly or estimated using proxy information. The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by factors such as the material type and dimension of piles. To estimate the noise effects of the 24-inch square concrete piles proposed for use in Year 1 of this project, Chevron reviewed sound pressure levels (SPLs) from other projects conducted under similar circumstances. These projects include the Pier 40 Berth Construction in San Francisco, and the Berth 22 and Berth 32 reconstruction projects at the Port of Oakland. However, NMFS elected to use data from only the Pier 40 project since 24-inch square concrete piles were installed at that location. At Berth 22 and Berth 32, 24-inch octagonal concrete piles were installed. The differences in pile shape may result in varying SPLs. Impact pile driving at Pier 40 resulted in measured RMS values ranging from 162-174 dB and peak SPLs from 172 to 186 dB. SEL measurements were not recorded. From Pier 40, NMFS selected a RMS value of 170 dB, which was the average of the eight piles tested, excluding 2 piles that utilized “jetting”. Jetting consists of employing a carefully directed and pressurized flow of water to assist in pile placement by liquefying soils at the pile tip during pile placement. Jetting tends to increase driving efficiency while decreasing sound levels and will not be utilized by Chevron during this project. NMFS used an identical approach to arrive at an average peak value of 181 dB.

Sound Propagation—Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log(range)). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log(range)). As is common practice in coastal waters, here we assume practical spreading loss (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance) here. Practical spreading is a compromise that is often used under conditions where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions.

Level A Zone—Chevron's Level A harassment zone was calculated by utilizing the methods presented in Appendix D of NMFS' Guidance and the accompanying User Spreadsheet. The Guidance provides updated PTS onset thresholds using the cumulative SEL (SELcum) metric, which incorporates marine mammal auditory weighting functions, to identify the received levels, or acoustic thresholds, at which individual marine mammals are predicted to experience changes in their hearing sensitivity for acute, incidental exposure to all underwater anthropogenic sound sources. The Guidance (Appendix D) and its companion User Spreadsheet provide alternative methodology for incorporating these more complex thresholds and associated weighting functions.

The User Spreadsheet accounts for weighting functions using Weighting Factor Adjustments (WFAs), and NMFS used the recommended values for impact driving therein (2 kHz). Pile driving durations were estimated based on similar project experience. NMFS' new acoustic thresholds use dual metrics of SELcum and peak sound level (PK) for impulsive sounds (e.g., impact pile driving). The noise levels noted above were used in the Spreadsheet for 24-inch square concrete piles. It was estimated that two piles would be installed in one 24-hr workday with installation for each pile requiring approximately 300 blows. NMFS used an RMS of 170 dB and pulse duration of 0.1 seconds. Measured SEL values were not available for 24-inch square concrete piles.

Utilizing the User Spreadsheet, NMFS applied the updated PTS onset thresholds for impulsive PK and SELcum in the new acoustic guidance to determine distance to the isopleths for PTS onset for impact pile driving. In determining the cumulative sound exposure levels, the Guidance considers the duration of the activity, the sound exposure level produced by the source during a 24-hr period, and the generalized hearing range of the receiving species. In the case of the duel metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sound, the larger of the two isopleths for calculating PTS onset is used. Results in Table 4 display the Level A injury zones for the various hearing groups.

The zone of influence (ZOI) refers to the area(s) in which SPLs equal or exceed NMFS' current Level B harassment thresholds (160 dB for impulse sound). Calculated radial distances to the 160 dB threshold assume a field free of obstruction. Assuming a source level of 170 dB RMS, installation of the 24-inch concrete piles is expected to produce underwater sound exceeding the Level B 160 dB RMS threshold over a distance of 46 meters (150 feet) (Table 5).

The HSRP, a Federal advisory committee, advises the Administrator on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 303 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act and such other appropriate matters as the Administrator refers to the Panel for review and advice. Those responsibilities and authorities include, but are not limited to: Acquiring and disseminating hydrographic data and providing hydrographic services, as those terms are defined in the Act; promulgating standards for hydrographic data and services; ensuring comprehensive geographic coverage of hydrographic services; and testing, developing, and operating vessels, equipment, and technologies necessary to ensure safe navigation and maintain operational expertise in hydrographic data acquisition and hydrographic services.

The Act states “the voting members of the Panel shall be individuals who, by reason of knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified in one or more of the disciplines and fields relating to hydrographic data and hydrographic services, marine transportation, port administration, vessel pilotage, coastal and fishery management, and other disciplines as determined appropriate by the Administrator.” The NOAA Administrator seeks and encourages individuals with expertise in marine navigation and technology, port administration, marine shipping or other intermodal transportation industries, cartography and geographic information systems, geodesy, physical oceanography, coastal resource management, including coastal preparedness and emergency response, and other related fields. To apply for membership on the Panel, applicants are requested to submit the following five items and respond to five questions. The entire package should be a maximum length of eight pages or fewer. NOAA is an equal opportunity employer.

(1) A cover letter that responds to the five questions listed below and serves as a statement of interest to serve on the panel. Please see “Short Response Questions” below.

(2) Highlight the nominee's specific area(s) of expertise relevant to the purpose of the Panel from the list in the Federal Register Notice.

(3) A current resume.

(4) A short biography of 400 to 500 words.

(5) The nominee's full name, title, institutional affiliation, mailing address, email, phone, fax and contact information.

(1) List the area(s) of expertise, as listed above, which you would best represent on this Panel.

(2) List the geographic region(s) of the country with which you primarily associate your expertise.

(3) Describe your leadership or professional experiences which you believe will contribute to the effectiveness of this panel.

(4) Describe your familiarity and experience with NOAA navigation data, products, and services.

(5) Generally describe the breadth and scope of stakeholders, users, or other groups whose views and input you believe you can share with the panel.

Under 33 U.S.C. 883a, et seq., NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS) is responsible for providing nautical charts and related information for safe navigation. NOS collects and compiles hydrographic, tidal and current, geodetic, and a variety of other data in order to fulfill this responsibility. The HSRP provides advice on current and emerging oceanographic and marine science technologies relating to operations, research and development; and dissemination of data pertaining to:

(a) Hydrographic surveying;

(b) shoreline surveying;

(c) nautical charting;

(d) water level measurements;

(e) current measurements;

(f) geodetic measurements;

(g) geospatial measurements;

(h) geomagnetic measurements; and

(i) other oceanographic/marine related sciences.

The Panel has fifteen voting members appointed by the NOAA Administrator in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 892c. Members are selected on a standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. The Co-Directors of the Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping/Joint Hydrographic Center and two other NOAA employees serve as nonvoting members of the Panel. The Director, NOAA Office of Coast Survey, serves as the Designated Federal Official (DFO).

Voting members are individuals who, by reason of knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified in one or more disciplines relating to hydrographic surveying, tides, currents, geodetic and geospatial measurements, marine transportation, port administration, vessel pilotage, coastal or fishery management, and other oceanographic or marine science areas as deemed appropriate by the Administrator. Full-time officers or employees of the United States may not be appointed as a voting member. Any voting member of the Panel who is an applicant for, or beneficiary of (as determined by the Administrator) any assistance under 33 U.S.C. 892c shall disclose to the Panel that relationship, and may not vote on any other matter pertaining to that assistance.

Voting members of the Panel serve a four-year term, except that vacancy appointments are for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy. Members serve at the discretion of the Administrator and are subject to government ethics standards. Any individual appointed to a partial or full term may be reappointed for one additional full term. A voting member may serve until his or her successor has taken office. The Panel selects one voting member to serve as the Chair and another to serve as the Vice Chair. The Vice Chair acts as Chair in the absence or incapacity of the Chair but will not automatically become the Chair if the Chair resigns. Meetings occur at least twice a year, and at the call of the Chair or upon the request of a majority of the voting members or of the Administrator. Voting members receive compensation at a rate established by the Administrator, not to exceed the maximum daily rate payable under section 5376 of title 5, United States Code, when engaged in performing duties for the Panel. Members are reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses incurred in performing such duties.

Upon selection and agreement to serve on the HSRP Panel, you become a Special Government Employee (SGE) of the United States Government. 18 U.S.C. 202(a) an SGE(s) is an officer or employee of an agency who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform temporary duties, with or without compensation, not to exceed 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days, either on a fulltime or intermittent basis. After the selection process is complete, applicants selected to serve on the Panel must complete the following actions before they can be appointed as a Panel member:

(a) Security Clearance (on-line Background Security Check process and fingerprinting conducted through NOAA Workforce Management); and

(b) Confidential Financial Disclosure Report—As an SGE, you are required to file a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report to avoid involvement in a real or apparent conflict of interest. You may find the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report at the following Web site. http://www.usoge.gov/forms/form_450.aspx.

Background

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

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

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

On June 12, 2015, NMFS received an adequate and complete application from the Corps for the taking of marine mammals incidental to the rehabilitation of the Jetty System at the MCR in Washington and Oregon. On August 25, 2016 NMFS published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, requesting comments and information related to the Corps request for thirty days (81 FR 58443). A corrected notice and extension of the public comment period was published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2016 (81 FR 61160). The final rule was published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2017 (82 FR 10286). For detailed information on this action, please refer to those documents. The regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental take of marine mammals during the rehabilitation of the Jetty System at the MCR in Washington and Oregon.

The purpose of the project is to rehabilitate the MCR jetty system, which has degraded over time. Rehabilitation of the jetty system will require vibratory pile driving for installation and subsequent removal of three off-loading facilities at the three MCR jetties. The pile driving and removal portion of the project will require approximately 49 days of in-water pile driving and removal. Vibratory pile driving and removal activities will generate underwater noise levels that are anticipated to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals. Pedestrian surveys of the jetty system will also occur which are anticipated to result in disturbance of hauled out pinnipeds. The Corps is authorized to take individuals of seven species of marine mammals by Level B harassment.

We have issued an LOA to the Corps authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to construction activities and pedestrian surveys as described above. Take of marine mammals will be minimized through implementation of the following mitigation measures: (1) Establishment and visual monitoring of shutdown and disturbance zones; (2) vessel-based monitoring of offshore waters; (3) shut-down of all pile installation, removal, or maintenance activities if any killer whales are observed within the Zone of Influence (ZOI) between May 1 and July 1 to eliminate potential for take of southern resident killer whales; and (4) implementation of a hydroacoustic monitoring plan to ensure that shutdown zones and ZOIs have been delineated appropriately. The Corps will submit annual marine mammal monitoring reports as required.

Based on these findings and the information discussed in the preamble to the final rule, the activities described under these LOAs will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stock for subsistence uses.

On 2/17/2017 (82 FR 11019), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

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

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

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

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

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

Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

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

The following product is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

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

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

The Enrollment Form and Exit Forms are used by AmeriCorps members and program staff to enroll in the National Service Trust and to document the completion of a member's term of service, a requirement to receiving a Segal Education Award and to meet other legal and program requirements. This information is also entered electronically into the National Service Trust database.

CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection with no changes. The information collection will be used in the same manner as the existing forms. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current forms until the forms are renewed by OMB. The current application is due to expire on 06/30/2017.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: National Service Trust Enrollment and Exit Forms.

OMB Number: 3045-0006.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: AmeriCorps members, grantee and other program staff.

Total Respondents: 160,000.

Frequency: Once per form.

Average Time per Response: Averages 10 minutes per form.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 266,667.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in CNCS's request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection forms; they will also become a matter of public record.

Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 209.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, and related provision at DFARS 252.209-7008, Notice of Prohibition Relating to Organizational Conflict of Interest-Major Defense Acquisition Program; OMB Control Number 0704-0477.

Type of Request: Revision.

Number of Respondents: 22.

Responses per Respondent: 3 approximately.

Annual Responses: 67.

Average Burden per Response: 40 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 2,680.

Needs and Uses: This information collection requires an offeror to submit a mitigation plan if requesting an exemption from the statutory limitation on future contracting. This information will be used to resolve organizational conflicts of interest arising in a systems engineering and technical assistance contract for a major defense acquisition program, as required by section 207 of Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.

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

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: DFARS 204.404-70(a) prescribes use of DFARS clause 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information, in contracts that require the contractor to access or generate unclassified information that may be sensitive and inappropriate for release to the public. The clause requires the contractor to obtain approval of the contracting officer before release of any unclassified contract-related information outside the contractor's organization, unless the information is already in the public domain. In requesting this approval, the contractor must identify the specific information to be released, the medium to be used, and the purpose for the release.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

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

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number, and title for the Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other public submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Publication Collections Program, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Part 204, Administrative Matters and Related Clause at 252.204; OMB Control Number 0704-0225.

Type of Request: Revision.

Number of Respondents: 1,196.

Responses per Respondent: Approximately 2.35.

Annual Responses: 2,806.

Average Burden per Response: Approximately 3 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 8,418.

Needs and Uses: DFARS 204.404-70(a) prescribes the use of the clause at DFARS 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information, when the contractor will have access to or generate unclassified information that may be sensitive and inappropriate for release to the public. Upon receipt of a contractor's request, the Government reviews the information provided by the contractor to determine if it is sensitive or otherwise inappropriate for release for the stated purpose.

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

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: DFARS 204.404-70(a) prescribes use of DFARS Clause 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information, in contracts that require the contractor to access or generate unclassified information that may be sensitive and inappropriate for release to the public. The clause requires the contractor to obtain approval of the contracting officer before release of any unclassified contract-related information outside the contractor's organization, unless the information is already in the public domain. In requesting this approval, the contractor must identify the specific information to be released, the medium to be used, and the purpose for the release.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

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

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number, and title for the Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other public submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Publication Collections Program, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement pursuant to Section 122(h) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h), with Genesco Inc. (“Genesco”) for the Metro Leather Superfund Site (“Site”), located in the City of Gloversville, Fulton County, New York. Genesco agrees to pay EPA $1.5 million in reimbursement of EPA's past response costs paid at or in connection with the Site.

The settlement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue or to take administrative action against Genesco pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), with regard to the response costs related to the work at the Site enumerated in the settlement agreement. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for Telehealth for Acute and Chronic Care Consultations.

The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (e.g., details of studies conducted). We are looking for studies that report on Telehealth for Acute and Chronic Care Consultations, including those that describe adverse events. The entire research protocol, including the key questions, is also available online at: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=2434.

This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on Telehealth for Acute and Chronic Care Consultations helpful:

A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please indicate whether results are available on ClinicalTrials.gov along with the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number.

For completed studies that do not have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, please provide a summary, including the following elements: Study number, study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, baseline characteristics, number of patients screened/eligible/enrolled/lost to follow-up/withdrawn/analyzed, effectiveness/efficacy, and safety results.

A list of ongoing studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please provide the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the trial is not registered, the protocol for the study including a study number, the study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary and secondary outcomes.

Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.

Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EPC Program. The contents of all submissions will be made available to the public upon request. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.

The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/join-the-email-list1/.

The systematic review will answer the following questions. This information is provided as background. AHRQ is not requesting that the public provide answers to these questions.

KQ 1: Are telehealth consultations effective in improving clinical and economic outcomes?

Telehealth consultations can be for any acute or chronic clinical condition across any specialty ranging from infectious disease to psychiatry.

Clinical and economic outcomes may include, but are not limited to, mortality and morbidity, utilization of health services, cost of services, and access to services.

KQ 2: Are telehealth consultations effective in improving intermediate outcomes?

Intermediate outcomes include both outcomes that precede the ultimate outcomes of interest and secondary outcomes.

Intermediate outcomes may include, but are not limited to, patient and provider satisfaction, behavior, and decisions (e.g., patient completion of treatment, provider antibiotic stewardship); volume of services; and health care processes (e.g., time to diagnosis or treatment).

KQ 3: Have telehealth consultations resulted in harms, adverse events, or negative unintended consequences?

What are the characteristics of telehealth consultations that have been the subject of comparative studies?

The characteristics include:

(a) Clinical conditions addressed. These can include broad categories such as diagnosis and treatment of infectious disease or specific conditions (e.g., upper respiratory infection, hepatitis C, skin infections) or decisions (e.g., stewardship of antibiotics or antimicrobials, selection of treatments).

(b) Characteristics of the providers and patients involved.

(c) Relationships among the providers and patients involved including whether these are new or ongoing relationships.

(d) Telehealth modalities and/or methods for sharing patient data used.

(e) Whether specifics in (d) meet Medicare's coverage and HIPAA requirements.

(f) Settings including.

• Type of health care organization including the organizational structure (e.g., integrated delivery system, critical access) and the type of care (e.g., long-term care, inpatient, ambulatory care).

• Country.

• Geographic and economic characteristics such as urban or rural areas, or areas with high vs. low socioeconomic resources.

(g) Other circumstances (e.g., appropriate transportation, climate).

(h) Payment models or requirements or limits for payment including.

• The payer/insurance for the patient (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, commercial).

• Any parameters for payment (e.g., relative value units [RVUs]) or limits on visits.

• Any eligibility requirements for payment based on patient, provider, setting or context characteristics.

KQ 5: Do clinical, economic, intermediate, or negative outcomes (i.e., the outcomes in Key Questions 1, 2, and 3) vary across telehealth consultation characteristics (Key Question 4)?

• Patients of any age, with medical care needs for prevention, treatment, or management of chronic or acute conditions.

• Providers (clinicians or health care organizations).

• Payers for health care services (public, private, insurers, patients).

• Telehealth consultations are defined as the use of telehealth designed to facilitate collaboration among providers, often involving a specialist, or between clinical team members, across time and/or distance, on the assessment, diagnosis, and/or clinical management of a specific patient or group of patients.

• Telehealth consultations can be for any acute or chronic conditions. The search will be both general as well as focused on conditions identified as areas of growth and policy interest such as infection, disease, dermatology, and critical care.

• Telehealth consultations can use any technology (e.g., real-time video, store and forward).

Other locations, patients, or time periods that use in-person consultations or provide usual care (which could include no access to specific services).

• Clinical outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, function, recovery, infection, and access to services.

• Economic outcomes such as return on investment, cost, volume of visits, and resource use.

• Patient satisfaction, behavior, and decisions such as completion of treatment, or satisfaction with less travel to access health care.

• Provider satisfaction, behavior, and decisions such as choice of treatment or antibiotic stewardship.

• Time to diagnosis and time to treatment.

• Diagnostic concordance or other measures of agreement between in-person and telehealth consultations.

• Loss of privacy or breach of data security.

• Misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis.

• Inappropriate treatment.

• Increase in resource costs, negative return on investment.

• Telehealth consultations can be used at any point in the diagnosis, treatment, or management of a patient.

• Outcome measurement needs to occur after the telehealth consultation.

The consultation can involve providers and patients in any location. These could include inpatient, outpatient, or long-term care, and could be in civilian, Veterans Administration, or military facilities.

• Comparative studies, including trials and observational studies.

• Descriptive studies may be used to inform the decision model as needed but will not be included in the systematic review.

Proposed Project Generic Clearance for the Collection of Data Through ACTION III Field-Based Investigations To Improve Health Care Delivery

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is requesting OMB approval of a generic clearance for purposes of conducting field-based research to improve care delivery in diverse health care settings. More specifically, AHRQ seeks this clearance to support timely and meaningful answers to research questions investigated through AHRQ's ACTION Program. ACTION III research produces field-based, stakeholder-informed knowledge about ways to improve care delivery, and real-world-driven implementation and dissemination of evidence across diverse care settings. A generic clearance to support expedited performance of ACTION III research activities would enable AHRQ to more efficiently meet agency goals while fully meeting the intent and requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act in a timely manner.

Collection of the information described in this request is essential to supporting AHRQ's mission, which is to produce evidence to make health care safer, higher quality, more accessible, equitable, and affordable, and to work within HHS and with other partners to make sure that the evidence is understood and used. More specifically, in support of this mission, AHRQ initiates and oversees projects with the following overarching aims:

• Expand knowledge about how specific changes to processes or structures of care delivery might improve care quality;

• Develop and test interventions, strategies, tools, trainings and guidance for putting that knowledge into practice;

• Disseminate and implement evidence-based practices across diverse care settings.

Information collections conducted under this clearance will be collected via the following methods:

• Interviews—Interviews (telephone or in-person) will be conducted with clinical or management staff from diverse health care settings, patients, or other providers or recipients of care with the purposes of expanding knowledge about how specific changes to processes or structures of care delivery might improve care quality; obtaining stakeholder-informed input about how and why an intervention or strategy will or won't work in a particular real world setting; identifying contextual factors that facilitate or impede implementation of complex system interventions or evidence-based practices; and identifying needs and challenges of intended users of tools and/or beneficiaries of trainings and other resources.

• Small discussion groups/focus groups—Small discussion groups/Focus groups will be conducted with providers or recipients of care from diverse health care settings with the purposes of obtaining stakeholder-informed input about how and why an intervention or strategy is or is not working in a particular real world setting and identifying needs and gaining user/beneficiary feedback on value and limitations of prototype redesigned care processes, tools, resources or trainings.

• Implementation Logs will be used to track activities, time and resource use associated with use of tools, trainings or other resources and to monitor progress and identify needed revisions to implementation methods.

• Recruitment and Screening Calls will be used to identify and enroll individuals, groups, or organizations willing to participate in the broader research study.

• Questionnaires or brief surveys will be used to capture broad, high level staff or patient level feedback on experience with tools, redesigned care processes, trainings or other resources.

• Cognitive Testing of surveys, Web sites, or other resources will be used to support the development of materials that resonate and can be understood by intended users.

• Collection of published and internal documents, performance assessments, and other data or information that could provide important contextual information about the specific settings of care into which new tools, resources, training or redesigned care processes will be introduced.

AHRQ will use the proposed generic clearance to obtain field-based, stakeholder-informed input and feedback about how and why interventions or strategies designed to improve care quality (i.e., safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity) do or do not work in the real world. Information collected under this clearance would be expected to increase understanding of how contextual factors and other key variables might affect the implementation and effectiveness of specific strategies, interventions or tools when utilized in particular settings. This knowledge would help health care providers and other decision-makers consider whether, when and how to use and adapt such strategies, interventions or tools to conform to their own needs and to the distinctive characteristics of the intended settings. Additionally, information collected under this clearance would be expected to increase AHRQ's understanding of contextual variables and other factors that facilitate or impede dissemination and implementation of clinical guidelines, evidence-based practices, and other research-based findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other partners.

As described above a variety of instruments and platforms will be used to collect information from respondents, though few, if any, single projects would be expected to use all the methods listed.

The average number annual burden hours per year requested (2,189.5) are presented in Table 1 below, and is based on an assumed average of 5 projects per year (we rounded up the past average of 4.5 projects per year to 5). The maximum total burden across all three years is thus 6,568.5 hours.

NIOSH seeks information about personal protective equipment (PPE) environmental storage conditions and inventory for federal, state, municipal, county, and hospital system stockpiles. Maintaining PPE stockpiles for public health emergencies is a significant cost and time investment for these various entities, which may include purchasing new products, maintaining inventory records, and lease or purchase of environmentally controlled storage space away from contaminated areas, dust, sun light, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals. The information provided by respondents to this Notice will be used to inform a research study design where N95 respirators and high-protection level surgical gowns are sampled from stockpiles and tested against established performance standards. The research study will be designed to obtain scientific data to assess (1) the potential to extend manufacturer-recommended shelf life and (2) the effect of common, albeit sometimes non-ideal, stockpile conditions on the protections provided by respirators and surgical gowns. NIOSH seeks to sample N95 respirators and high-protection level surgical gowns from a variety of stockpiles representing contemporary storage conditions from across the nation. To that end, the information sought in this Notice is aimed at ensuring that study findings are broadly applicable to U.S. stockpiles.

Background: Various entities stockpile personal protective equipment (PPE) in preparation for public health responses to outbreaks of high consequence infectious diseases such as SARS, influenza, and Ebola, where PPE demand may outpace supply. Stockpiling PPE is a costly endeavor that includes PPE purchase, storage space, product rotation over time, and environmental controls for heat, humidity, dust, and sunlight. Resource limitations may lead facilities to stockpile PPE in environments that do not meet manufacturer storage recommendations or exceed shelf life, increasing the potential for PPE degradation. Even when resources exist to store PPE per manufacturer's environmental recommendations, the influence of long-term storage time alone on PPE performance has been questioned. Additionally, large quantities of stockpiled PPE obtained during previous nationwide responses may now be exceeding its shelf life and expected replacement costs will likely far exceed available budgets. Data is needed to better understand the potential impact upon worker health and safety.

Information Needs: Information is needed to assist NIOSH in identifying important factors to focus the research study design. Information is needed from facilities that stockpile N95 respirators and high-level protective surgical gowns for use during public health emergencies. Please ensure the type of stockpile you are affiliated with is included in the responses to any of the below questions.

1. Please describe the type of stockpile with which you are affiliated (e.g., federal, state, county). Please describe the end users of the stockpiled products (e.g., healthcare workers, public).

2. Please describe the extent to which environmental controls are implemented and maintained. For example, does the stockpile employ controls against humidity, temperature, sunlight, dust, or chemical exposure? Please describe how these controls are implemented, monitored, regularity of monitoring, and what optimal conditions are. Available guidance documents used for the stockpile would be welcome. What are the barriers to maintaining these controls? What factors are currently not being controlled that you feel are relevant to this effort?

3. How do you monitor for N95 respirator and high-level protective surgical gown deterioration? What are signs of deterioration you consider (e.g., cosmetic, box damage, expiration dates)? What are barriers in determining deterioration?

4. If applicable, please describe your process for PPE rotation. For example, please describe your process for ensuring new products are purchased upon expiration of shelf-life for currently stockpiled N95 respirators/high-level surgical gowns. Quantity estimates of the stockpiled N95 respirator/surgical gown inventory exceeding the recommended shelf life would be valuable to the design of this study.

5. If stockpiled N95 respirators/surgical gowns are purchased from a distributor (i.e. not directly from the manufacturer), please describe your process for obtaining information on storage practices from these distributors.

6. What types of controls are available in the shipping environment? Do they instruct points-of-use on storage requirements? Other use limitations/instructions?

7. Please provide information about the N95 respirator and high-level surgical gown inventory available in the stockpile, including brands, models, and related estimated numbers to help us better understand the type and quantities of PPE that may be affected by this research.

This notice advises the public that we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have prepared a draft environmental assessment (draft EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1967, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA), and its implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6.

This notice also announces the receipt of an application from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for a 30-year incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act). PG&E prepared the Draft Bay Area Habitat Conservation Plan (Draft Plan, or HCP) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. PG&E is requesting the authorization of incidental take for 32 covered species that could result from activities covered under the Draft Plan.

The Draft Plan is a comprehensive regional habitat conservation plan for the nine counties surrounding the San Francisco Bay, and is designed to provide long-term conservation and management of sensitive species and the habitats upon which those species depend, while accommodating routine operation and maintenance (O&M) activities and minor construction for PG&E's gas and electrical distribution facilities and implementation of the Draft Plan.

Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 et seq.) and Federal regulations (50 CFR 17) prohibit the taking of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Act. Take of federally listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to engage in such conduct. The term “harass” is defined in the regulations as to carry out actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harm” is defined in the regulations as significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury of listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). However, under specified circumstances, the Service may issue permits that allow the take of federally listed species, provided that the take that occurs is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity.

Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains provisions for issuing such incidental take permits to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met:

(1) The taking will be incidental;

(2) The applicants will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking;

(3) The applicants will develop a proposed HCP and ensure that adequate funding for the HCP will be provided;

(4) The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and

(5) The applicants will carry out any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP.

The Service would issue an ITP to PG&E for a period of 30 years for certain covered activities (described below) in the 9 counties surrounding the San Francisco Bay. Annual species effects as a result of PG&E's activities are estimated to be approximately 60 acres of permanent habitat loss and 326 acres of temporary habitat disturbance. PG&E has requested a ITP for 32 species (Covered Species), 19 animals and 13 plants, all of which are currently listed as threatened or endangered under the Act.

The geographic scope of the Draft Plan includes Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties; collectively, this area is known as the study area in the Draft Plan and Draft EA. Within the study area, the Plan Area consists of PG&E's gas and electric transmission and distribution facilities, rights-of-way, buffer lands, areas owned by PG&E and/or subject to PG&E easements, access routes, and those areas acquired as mitigation to offset the impacts resulting from covered activities. The total plan area is approximately 402,440 acres; of this total acreage, 128,735 acres (32 percent) are in natural land-cover types, 246,777 acres (61 percent) are in urban land-cover types, and 26,928 acres (7 percent) are in agricultural land-cover types.

The proposed section 10 ITP may allow take of covered wildlife species resulting from covered activities in the proposed HCP plan area. PG&E is requesting incidental take authorization for covered species that could be affected by activities identified in the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan covers all PG&E O&M, minor new construction, and pipeline safety enhancement program activities related to PG&E's natural gas and electric transmission and distribution systems that may result in take of covered species and that are located in the plan area. O&M activities occur throughout PG&E's existing network of facilities and would occur at or near the existing facilities. Minor new construction activities include installing new or replacement structures to upgrade facilities or to extend service to new customers. Minor new construction, when in natural vegetation or agricultural land-cover types that contain suitable habitat for covered species, is limited to approximately 2 miles or fewer of new electric or gas line extensions from an existing line, a total of 1 acre or less of new gas pressure limiting stations within the study area, and 0.5 acre or less for each electric substation expansion. End-to-end extensions exceeding approximately 2 miles would not be covered under the Draft Plan. Multiple 2-mile extensions in different areas would be covered, but each would be treated as a separate activity. The size of a minor new construction project would be estimated as the total footprint, expressed in acres. Additionally, PG&E's community pipeline safety initiative involves upgrading key existing gas transmission pipelines located in heavily populated and other critical areas. Covered activities include inspection, field testing, and potentially replacing many pipeline segments to ensure reliable and safe delivery of gas to customers. Pipeline replacements are estimated to average between 4 miles and 8 miles and are primarily in urban areas, although there would also be replacement activities in areas of natural vegetation.

Covered species are those species addressed in the Draft HCP for which conservation actions will be implemented and for which PG&E is seeking an ITP for a period of 30 years. Proposed covered species include those listed as threatened or endangered under the Act.

The following federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species are proposed to be covered by the Draft HCP: The endangered California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica), endangered conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), endangered longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), threatened delta green ground beetle (Elaphrus viridis), threatened Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), endangered callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe), endangered Lange's metalmark butterfly (Apodemia mormo langei), endangered Mission blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides missionensis), endangered San Bruno elfin butterfly (Incisalia mossii bayensis), threatened California tiger salamander (Central Distinct Population Segment (DPS)) (Ambystoma californiense), endangered California tiger Salamander (Sonoma County DPS) (Ambystoma californiense), threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), threatened Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), endangered San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), endangered Ridgway's rail (Rallus obsoletus), endangered salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), and endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica).

Take of federally listed plant species is not prohibited on non-Federal land under the Act, and cannot be authorized under a section 10 permit. However, PG&E proposes to include federally listed plant species in recognition of the conservation benefits provided for them under the Draft Plan. For the purposes of the Draft Plan, federally listed plant species are further included to meet regulatory obligations under section 7 of the Act. All species included on the ITP would receive assurances under Service's “No Surprises” regulations found in 50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5). The following federally listed plant species are included in the Draft Plan in recognition of the conservation benefits provided for them and the assurances PG&E would receive if they are included on permit: Threatened pallid manzanita (Arctostaphylos pallida), endangered Sonoma sunshine (Blennosperma bakeri), endangered coyote ceanothus (Ceanothus ferrisae), endangered fountain thistle (Cirsium fontinale fontinale), endangered Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya abramsii setchellii), endangered Contra Costa wallflower (Erysimum capitatum angustatum), threatened Marin dwarf flax (Hesperolinon congestum), endangered Burke's goldfields (Lasthenia burkei), endangered Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), endangered Sebastopol meadowfoam (Limnanthese vinculantes), endangered Antioch Dunes evening primrose (Oenothera deltoides howellii), endangered white-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta bellidiflora), and endangered Metcalf Canyon jewelflower (Streptanthus glandulosus albidus).

The Draft EA was prepared to analyze the impacts of issuing an ITP based on the Draft Plan and to inform the public of the proposed action, alternatives, and associated impacts and disclose any irreversible commitments of resources.

The proposed permit issuance triggers the need for compliance with NEPA. The proposed action presented in the Draft EA is compared to the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative represents estimated future conditions to which the proposed action's estimated future conditions can be compared.

Based on the expected scope of the HCP in 2006, the Service published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a joint environmental impact statement/environmental impact report (EIS/EIR) in the Federal Register on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65123). The NOI announced a 30-day public scoping period during which the public was invited to provide written comments and attend three public scoping meetings, which were held on January 14, 2006, in Petaluma, California, and January 15, 2006, in Santa Clara and Walnut Creek, California. However, since 2006, the overall scope of the Draft HCP has been reduced from that expected at the time the Service published the NOI. The Service did not directly receive any public comments. However, two State agencies, the California Department of Transportation and the Delta Protection Commission, indirectly submitted comment letters, one to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and one to the State Clearinghouse. No significant issues were identified during the 30-day public scoping period. Also, upon review, it appears that there are no potential significant impacts to the human environment. As a result, the Service withdraws our intent to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and is now providing notice of the availability of a Draft EA, which evaluates the impacts of the Proposed Action described above (issuance of the permit and implementation of the Draft Plan), as well as the No-Action Alternative described below.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Service would not issue an ITP to PG&E, and the Draft Plan would not be implemented. Under this alternative, individual PG&E projects and activities that may adversely affect federally listed animal species would require consultation with the Service pursuant to section 7 or section 10 of the Act on a case-by-case basis. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no comprehensive means to coordinate and standardize mitigation requirements of the Act within the Plan Area; this is anticipated to result in a more costly, less equitable, less efficient project review process that would provide fewer conservation benefits. Conservation planning and implementation would not happen at a regional scale and would be unlikely to result in a large interconnected system of conservation lands, but would instead likely result in relatively small and isolated conservation lands spread out over the entire study area.

We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice, the Draft EA, and Draft Plan. We particularly seek comments on the following:

1. Biological information concerning the species;

2. Relevant data concerning the species;

3. Additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of the species;

4. Current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on the species;

5. The presence of archeological sites, buildings and structures, historic events, sacred and traditional areas, and other historic preservation concerns, which are required to be considered in project planning by the National Historic Preservation Act; and

6. Identification of any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed development and permit action.

You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Service's Sacramento address (see ADDRESSES).

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

Issuance of an incidental take permit is a Federal proposed action subject to compliance with NEPA. We will evaluate the application, associated documents, and any public comments we receive to determine whether the application meets the requirements of NEPA regulations and section 10(a) of the Act. If we determine that those requirements are met, we will issue a permit to the applicant for the incidental take of the Covered Species. We will make our final permit decision no sooner than 30 days after the public comment period closes.

We publish this notice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 et seq.; NEPA), and its implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1500-1508, as well as in compliance with section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 et seq.; Act).

The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. During the April 5, 2017, meeting the Boise District RAC will receive updates on the Wild Horse and Burro program; travel management planning; fire program; Soda Fire rehabilitation; the Four Rivers Field Office Resource Management Plan; and other field office updates. Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media announcements, and the final agenda RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RAC at the address provided above. Each RAC meeting will have time allocated for oral comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

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

The Southeast Oregon RAC consists of 15 members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Their diverse perspectives are represented in commodity, conservation, and general interests. They provide advice to BLM and U.S. Forest Service resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in southeast Oregon. This meeting is open to the public in its entirety. The agenda will be released online at https://www.blm.gov/site-page/get-involved-resource-advisory-council-near-you-oregon-washington-southeast-oregon-rac prior to April 3, 2017. Agenda items for the meeting include: Discussion and impressions from the field trip; an update and possible recommendations from the Lands with Wilderness Characteristics subcommittee; an update from the Tri-State Fuels Break subcommittee; and an update on the Sage Grouse Causal Factors Analysis process. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the Southeast Oregon RAC may also be addressed.

A public comment period will be available from 11 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. during the April 11, 2017, meeting. Unless otherwise approved by the Southeast Oregon RAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the Southeast Oregon RAC for a maximum of 5 minutes. Meeting times and the duration of the public comment periods may be extended or altered when the authorized representative considers it necessary to accommodate necessary business and all who seek to be heard regarding matters before the Southeast Oregon RAC.

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

The Commission instituted this investigation on December 18, 2015, based on a supplemented and twice-amended complaint filed by AAVN, Inc. of Richardson, Texas (“AAVN”). 80 FR 79094 (Dec. 18, 2015). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain woven textile fabrics and products containing same, by reason of infringement of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,131,790 (“the '790 patent”) and/or by reason of false advertising. The notice of investigation named fifteen respondents: AQ Textiles, LLC of Greensboro, North Carolina; Creative Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. of Mumbai, India and Indo Count Industries Ltd., both of Mumbai, India; Indo Count Global, Inc. of New York, New York; GHCL Limited of Uttar Pradesh, India; Grace Home Fashions LLC of New York, New York; E & E Company, Ltd. of Maharashtra, India; E&E Company, Ltd. d/b/a JLA Home of Fremont, California; Welspun Global Brands Ltd. of Gujarat, India; Welspun USA Inc. of New York, New York; Elite Home Products, Inc. of Saddle Brook, New Jersey; Pacific Coast Textiles, Inc. and Amrapur Overseas, Inc., both of Garden Grove, California; Westport Linens, Inc. of New York, New York; and Pradip Overseas Ltd. of Ahmedabad, India (“Pradip”). In the course of the investigation, fourteen of the respondents were terminated from the investigation based upon settlement agreement or consent order. See Order No. 21 at 2-3 (Nov. 10, 2016) (summarizing the procedural history of the investigation). The last remaining respondent was Pradip.

AAVN accused Pradip of false advertising, specifically alleging that Pradip misrepresented the thread count of sheets manufactured in India, imported into the United Sates, and sold in United States department stores. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 39-41, 80 (Nov. 12, 2015); id. at Ex. 46 (“800 Thread Count” sheets measured at 252.7 threads). Although Pradip responded to the complaint, Pradip later terminated its relationship with its attorneys and represented that it would not participate in the remainder of the investigation. See Order No. 14 at 1 (Apr. 19, 2016); see also 19 CFR 210.17 (failures to act).

On September 2, 2016, AAVN moved for leave to file a motion for summary determination of violation. The summary determination motion that was appended argued, inter alia, that Pradip had violated section 337 by falsely advertising the thread count of its imported sheets, that the false advertising was deceptive, material, and injurious to AAVN. AAVN sought a general exclusion order and 100 percent bond during the Presidential review period. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2), (j)(3). On September 15, 2016, the Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) responded in support of the motion for leave and the accompanying summary determination motion including its proposed relief. Pradip did not respond. See 19 CFR 210.17(c).

On November 10, 2016, the ALJ granted the motion for summary determination as an initial determination (Order No. 21). The ID found that AAVN had shown a violation of section 337 by reason of false advertising under section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B). Order No. 21 at 7-9, 13-15. As to remedy, citing 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2), which sets forth the test for issuance of a general exclusion order, id. at 16, the ALJ found that “the evidence shows a widespread pattern of violation of Section 337,” id. at 17. The ALJ also found that “the evidence shows that it is difficult to identify the source and manufacturers of the falsely advertised products,” because “U.S. retailers fail to identify the manufacturer, importer or seller of the textile products at the point of sale.” Id. at 18. Nor do import records “reveal the names of the original manufacturers of the materials used to construct the imported products.” Id. Accordingly, the ALJ found “that the evidence shows that it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify the sources of the falsely advertised goods.” Id. Based on these findings the ALJ recommended the issuance of a general exclusion order. Id. In the alternative, the ALJ recommended the issuance of a limited exclusion order. Id. at 19. The ALJ recommended that bond be set at 100 percent of the entered value of the falsely advertised products. Id.

On December 20, 2016, the Commission determined not to review Order No. 21, resulting in a finding of a violation of section 337. 81 FR 95195 (Dec. 27, 2016). The Commission requested written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id. at 95196. On January 6, 2017, AAVN and the IA filed submissions on these issues. On January 13, 2017, the IA filed a reply to AAVN's submission. No other submissions were received.

The Commission finds that the statutory requirements for relief under 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2) are met. In addition, the Commission finds that the public interest factors enumerated in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) do not preclude issuance of the statutory relief.

The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy in this investigation is a general exclusion order prohibiting the entry of certain woven textile fabrics and products containing same that are falsely advertised through a misrepresentation of thread count. The Commission has also determined that the bond during the period of Presidential review pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) shall be in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the imported articles that are subject to the general exclusion order. The Commission's order was delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of its issuance.

The authority for the Commission's determinations is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1030 on November 28, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Complainants Celanese International Corporation of Irving, Texas; Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. of Irving, Texas; and Celanese IP Hungary Bt of Budapest, Hungary (collectively, “Complainants” or “Celanese”). See 81 FR 85640-1 (Nov. 28, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain high-potency sweeteners, processes for making same, and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,024,016 (“the '016 patent”). See id. The notice of investigation identified Suzhou Hope Technology Co., Ltd. of Suzhou City, China; Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd. of Anhui, China; and Vitasweet Co., Ltd. of Beijing, China (collectively, “Respondents”) as respondents in this investigation. See id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is also a party to this investigation. See id.

On February 2, 2017, Complainants filed a motion for termination of the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint. On February 13, 2017, Respondents filed responses in opposition to Complainants' motion. On the same day, the Commission Investigative Attorney (“IA”) filed a response in support of Complainants' motion. Additionally, on February 17, 2017, Complainants filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of their motion.

On March 1, 2017, the ALJ issued the subject ID, denying Complainants' motion for leave to file a reply but granting their motion for termination of the investigation. The ALJ found that Complainants' motion complied with Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.21(a)(1), “insomuch as it includes a statement that `[t]here are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between Complainant and Respondents . . . concerning the subject matter of this Investigation.' ” ID at 4 (alteration in original). The ALJ also found no “extraordinary circumstances that merit denying Celanese's motion at this relatively early point in the investigation.” Id. (citations omitted).

No party has filed a petition for review of the subject ID.

The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The investigation is terminated.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

A Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental RFEIS was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2016 (81 Federal Register 81809). The Draft Supplemental RFEIS was prepared to address changes to the proposed action, as required under NEPA [40 CFR 1502.9(c)], and to assess new circumstances or information relevant to potential environmental impacts. In March 2016, the Bureau completed the Revised Final EIS for the Proposed United States Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp, Letcher County, Kentucky, which evaluated the potential environmental impacts from the acquisition of property and construction and operation of a new United States Penitentiary, Federal Prison Camp, ancillary facilities, and access roads in Letcher County. The RFEIS analyzed two potential locations: An approximately 753-acre site in eastern Letcher County (Alternative 1—Payne Gap), and an approximately 700-acre site in western Letcher County (Alternative 2—Roxana). The RFEIS identified Alternative 2—Roxana as the preferred alternative because it best meets the project needs and, on balance, would have fewer impacts to the natural and built environment.

The Bureau was originally considering acquiring approximately 700 acres at the Roxana site for this project. The Bureau removed two parcels of land at the Roxana site from acquisition consideration, resulting in a proposed site of approximately 570 acres. This reduction in site size necessitated modifying the facilities layout evaluated for Alternative 2—Roxana in the RFEIS. The environmental impacts of the Modified Alternative 2—Roxana have been analyzed in the Draft Supplemental RFEIS. The alternatives evaluated in the Draft Supplemental RFEIS include the No Action Alternative and Modified Alternative 2—Roxana.

Modified Alternative 2—Roxana is the Preferred Alternative and includes proposed facilities that would house approximately 1,216 total inmates: Approximately 960 within the USP and approximately 256 within the FPC. Inmates housed in the USP would be high-security male inmates and those housed in the FPC would be minimum-security male inmates. In addition to the USP and FPC, several ancillary facilities necessary for the operation of the USP and FPC would be constructed. The ancillary facilities would include a central utility plant, outdoor firing range, outside warehouse, staff training building, garage/landscape building, access roads, and parking lots. A non-lethal/lethal fence and site lighting would also be installed. The non-lethal/lethal fence would be placed around the perimeter of the USP between two parallel, chain link and razor wire fences. Operation of the USP and FPC would require approximately 300 full-time staff.

The Draft Supplemental RFEIS analyzes potential direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from Modified Alternative 2—Roxana, including land use and zoning; topography, geology, and soils; air quality; noise; infrastructure and utilities; cultural resources; water resources; and biological resources. The Bureau determined there is no significant new information relevant to environmental concerns and no appreciable changes to potential impacts as a result of the modifications to the Roxana site size and facilities layout under Modified Alternative 2—Roxana to the following resource areas: Socioeconomics and environmental justice, community facilities and services, transportation and traffic, and hazardous materials and waste. Relevant and reasonable measures that could avoid or mitigate environmental impacts have been analyzed.

The Bureau is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and with the Kentucky Heritage Council under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. When complete, results of these ongoing consultations will be included in the Final Supplemental RFEIS.

A notice of availability of the Draft Supplemental RFEIS and a notice of public meeting is being published in the area newspapers to identify further details about the public meeting and the specific opportunities and methods for the public to provide comments on the Draft Supplemental RFEIS. The mailing list for the Draft Supplemental RFEIS was based on the mailing list in the 2016 RFEIS. Those on this list will receive a copy of the Draft Supplemental RFEIS. This list includes local, state, and federal agencies with jurisdiction, elected officials and community leaders, businesses and organizations, and other interested parties and individuals. Anyone wishing to be added to the mailing list to receive a copy of the Draft Supplemental RFEIS may request to be added by contacting the Bureau's Site Selection Specialist at the address below. Following completion of the 45-day public comment period on the Draft Supplemental RFEIS, the Bureau will issue a Final Supplemental RFEIS that will include comments received during the public comment period on the Draft Supplemental RFEIS. The Final Supplemental RFEIS will also include the Bureau's response to substantive comments received on the Draft Supplemental RFEIS. Following publication of the Final Supplemental RFEIS, a 30-day review period will be provided. No action will be taken to implement any of the proposed alternatives until completion of the 30-day review period on the Final Supplemental RFEIS and issuance of a Record of Decision on behalf of the Bureau by its Director or Acting Director.

The Merit Systems Protection Board is publishing the names of the current and new members of its Performance Review Board (PRB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). Laura M. Albornoz, currently a member of the PRB, will serve as Chairman of the PRB. Michael Cushing of the Export-Import Bank and Louis Lopez of the Office of Special Counsel are new members of the PRB. Susan M. Swafford and William L. Boulden continue to serve as members of the PRB.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0064 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0064. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing Docket ID NRC-2017-0064 on this Web site.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing ADAMS Accession No. ML16365A161. The supporting statement and NRC Form 241, “Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or Offshore Waters” is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16365A163.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

• NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting NRC's Clearance Officer, David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected].

Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0064 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS, and the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.

1. The title of the information collection: NRC Form 241, “Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or Offshore Waters”.

2. OMB approval number: 3150-0013.

3. Type of submission: Extension.

4. The form number, if applicable: NRC Form 241.

5. How often the collection is required or requested: NRC Form 241 must be submitted each time an Agreement State licensee wants to engage in or revise its activities involving the use of radioactive byproduct material in a non-Agreement State, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters. The NRC may waive the requirements for filing additional copies of NRC Form 241 during the remainder of the calendar year following receipt of the initial form.

6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Any licensee who holds a specific license from an Agreement State and wants to conduct the same activity in non-Agreement States, areas of exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or offshore waters under the general license in section 150.20 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).

7. The estimated number of annual responses: 1,720 responses.

8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 200 respondents.

9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 480 hours (100 hours for initial submissions + 380 hours for changes + 0 hours for clarifications).

10. Abstract: Any Agreement State licensee who engages in the use of radioactive material in non-Agreement States, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters, under the general license in 10 CFR 150.20, is required to file, with the NRC Regional Administrator for the Region in which the Agreement State that issues the license is located, a copy of NRC Form 241, “Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or Offshore Waters,” a copy of its Agreement State specific license, and the appropriate fee as prescribed in 10 CFR 170.31 at least 3 days before engaging in such activity. This mandatory notification permits the NRC to schedule inspections of the activities to determine whether the activities are being conducted in accordance with requirements for protection of the public health and safety.

The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:

1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?

The Peace Corps Office of Communications activities and publications support section 2 of the Peace Corps Act, which states that one of the agency's missions is to “promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of all Americans.” The Peace Corps Media Library project gathers and makes accessible, via the internet, stories and photos of Peace Corps Volunteers who have served in 140 countries over the past 54 years, helping to convey to the American public the Peace Corps' legacy of service to host country communities throughout the world.

OMB Control Number: 0420-0552.

Old Title: Peace Corps Digital Library.

New Title: Peace Corps Media Library.

Type of Review: Regular.

Affected Public: Individuals.

Respondents' Obligation to Reply: Voluntary.

Burden to the Public:

a. Number of Respondents (first year): 500.

b. Frequency of response: 1 response.

c. Completion time: 5 minutes.

d. Annual burden hours: 42 hours.

General Description of Collection: The Peace Corps Media Library collects stories and photographs from Returned Peace Corps Volunteers along with basic contact information (name, phone number, email address) and information about their Peace Corps service, such as dates of service, geographic location, and sector of service. Respondents include Returned Peace Corps Volunteers and current or former Peace Corps staff interested in voluntarily submitting photos and/or videos to the Peace Corps Media Library. This information is used to add assets to the media library on the Peace Corps Web site; provide photos for use in exhibits, news articles and events about Peace Corps; assist in documenting the history of the Peace Corps as experienced by its Volunteers through the years.

Request for Comment: Peace Corps invites comments on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for proper performance of the functions of the Peace Corps, including whether the information will have practical use; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction

The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40.

The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

1. Docket No(s).: MC2017-98 and CP2017-144; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 298 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: March 20, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: March 28, 2017.

2. Docket No(s).: MC2017-99 and CP2017-145; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 44 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: March 20, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due: March 28, 2017.

3. Docket No(s).: CP2017-146; Filing Title: Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package Services 7 Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 20, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Curtis E. Kidd; Comments Due: March 28, 2017.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 20, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 44 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-99, CP2017-145.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 20, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 298 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-98, CP2017-144.