Federal Register Vol. 82, No.79,

The purpose of the Little Boulder project is to create conditions that are more resilient to disturbance by restoring white pine and other seral tree species and to initiate recovery of watershed function. Currently, grand fir and Douglas-fir tree species dominate the landscape within the proposed project area. The current species composition is creating intense competition for nutrients and ladder fuels in the drier, fire-dependent ecosystems. If left untreated, these conditions would lead to a decline in forest health and put future ecological, societal, and economical values at risk.

There is a need to initiate recovery of watershed function with management actions aimed at reducing long-term sedimentation to streams and improving soil productivity. Nearly all of the fish-bearing streams in the Little Boulder project area are critical habitat for steelhead. A combination of various past management activities have resulted in channels with excess sediment, areas of bank instability, and decreased fisheries habitat. The proposed activities in the Little Boulder project would aim to improve future watershed conditions.

The original proposed action identified has been modified based on additional field review, resource concerns, and scoping comments. Information about the original proposed action can be found on the project Web site at http://prdp2fs.ess.udsa.gov/project/?project=45225. The current proposal, also identified as Alternative 2, would harvest timber from approximately 2,680 acres. Non-commercial fuels reduction treatments would occur on approximately 1,180 acres. Proposed activities would require construction of 5.2 miles of new roads, 9 miles of reconstruction, and 14.9 miles of road re-conditioning. 10.2 miles of temporary roads would be decommissioned after harvest.

Watershed improvements would include: Placing existing roads needed for future management into intermittent storage; improving channel and riparian function through woody debris and vegetation treatments; replacing undersized or deteriorated culverts; replacing existing Ruby Creek ford with a bridge or other aquatic organism passage structure; and decompacting existing skid trails and landings.

Three alternatives are being developed in addition to the proposed action (Alternative 2) for the Little Boulder project: Alternative 1—No-action; Alternative 2—Proposed Action (preferred); Alternative 3—Existing Roads; Alternative 4-Openings Less Than 40 Acres in Size.

Forest Supervisor, Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests.

The Responsible Official will determine whether to adopt the proposed action or another alternative, in whole or in part, and what mitigation measurements and management requirements will be implemented.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments submitted in a timely and appropriate response to the previous notification to prepare an environmental assessment were reviewed, considered, and already established standing to object.

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, anonymous comments will not procide the Agecny with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that every National Forest System (NFS) unit develop a forest plan. On April 9, 2012, the Forest Service finalized its land management planning rule (2012 Planning Rule, 36 CFR 219), which describes requirements for the planning process and the content of the forest plans. Forest plans describe the strategic direction for management of forest resources for ten to fifteen years, and are adaptive and amendable as conditions change over time. Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the assessment of ecological, social, cultural, and economic conditions and trends is the first stage of the planning process (36 CFR 219.6). The second stage, formal plan revision, involves the development of our forest plan in conjunction with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The third stage of the process is monitoring and feedback, which is ongoing over the life of the revised forest plans.

The Gila National Forest has completed its assessment pursuant to 2012 Forest Planning Rule. The assessment was developed with public participation and includes an evaluation of existing information about relevant ecological, economic, cultural and social conditions, trends, and sustainability and their relationship to forest plans within the context of the broader landscape. The intent of the Gila National Forest is that this information builds a common understanding prior to entering formal plan revision. With this notice, the Gila National Forest is initiating formal plan revision and invites other governments, non-governmental parties, and the public to contribute. The intent of public engagement is to inform development of the plan revision. We encourage contributors to share material that may be relevant to the planning process, including desired conditions for the Gila National Forest. As we develop public engagement opportunities to assist with the plan revision phase, public announcements will be made and information will be posted on the Forest's Web site: http://go.usa.gov/h88k. If you would like to contribute to the process or for more information email [email protected], or contact Matt Schultz, Forest Planner, Gila National Forest, 575-388-8280.

Adam Mendonca, Forest Supervisor, Gila National Forest, 3005 E. Camino del Bosque, Silver City, NM 88061.

The Gila National Forest is preparing an EIS to revise the existing forest plan. The EIS process is meant to inform the Forest Supervisor so he can decide which alternative best maintains and restores National Forest System terrestrial and aquatic resources while providing ecosystem services and multiple uses, as required by the National Forest Management Act and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act.

The revised forest plan will describe the strategic intent of managing the Forest for the next 10 to 15 years and will address the identified needs for change to the existing land management plans. The revised forest plan will provide management direction in the form of desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability of lands. It will identify delineation of new management areas and possibly geographic areas across the Forest; identify the timber sale program quantity; make recommendations to Congress for Wilderness designation; and list rivers and streams eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The revised forest plan will also provide a description of the plan area's distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape, identify watersheds that are a priority for maintenance or restoration, include a monitoring program, and contain information reflecting expected possible actions over the life of the plan.

It is also important to identify the types of decisions that will not be made within the revised forest plan. The revised forest plan will represent decisions that are strategic in nature, but will not make site-specific project decisions and will not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to carry on the Forest Service's internal operations. The authorization of project level activities will be based on the guidance/direction contained in the revised plan, but will occur through subsequent project specific NEPA analysis and decision-making.

The revised forest plan will provide broad, strategic guidance that is consistent with other laws and regulations. Though strategic guidance will be provided, no decisions will be made regarding the management of individual roads or trails, such as those might be associated with a Travel Management plan under 36 CFR part 212. Some issues (e.g., hunting regulations), although important, are beyond the authority or control of the National Forest System and will not be considered.

According to the National Forest Management Act, forest plans are to be revised at least every 15 years. The purpose and need for revising the current forest plan are to: (1) Update the Forest Plan which was approved in 1986 and is over 30 years old, (2) reflect changes in economic, social, and ecological conditions, new policies and priorities, and new information based on monitoring and scientific research, and (3) address the preliminary identified needs for change to the existing plan, which are summarized below. Extensive public and employee involvement, along with science-based evaluations, have helped to identify theses preliminary needs for change to the existing forest plan.

What follows is a summary of the preliminary identified needs for change. A more fully developed description of the preliminary needs for change, which has been organized into several resource and management topic sections, is available for review on the plan revision Web site at: http://go.usa.gov/h88k.

The ability of the National Forest to continue to provide desired social and economic benefits associated with recreation and tourism, ranching, hunting, timber, and other natural resources is affected by changing social, economic, and environmental conditions. To help balance these demands with sustainability, there is a need to:

1. Develop a desired condition to recognize and improve the Forest's role in contributing to local economies through recreation and tourism, timber and forest products, livestock grazing, and other multiple-use related activities and products while balancing these uses with available resource capacity and emerging opportunities.

2. Include management approaches throughout the plan as appropriate that consider the capacity of infrastructure, contractors and markets when planning towards desired conditions.

Relationships and Partners. Especially with challenges related to lower budgets and staffing levels, strong working relationships can help successfully implement the forest plan. With this in mind, there is a need to:

3. Include management approaches throughout the plan as appropriate that utilize collaboration with stakeholders, partnerships and volunteer opportunities as a management option to strengthen relationships and to promote movement toward desired conditions. This includes but is not limited to local, state, and federal agencies, local and tribal governments, elected officials, local communities, interested individuals, businesses, permittees, recreation and forest user groups, fire safety and community protection groups, environmental and conservation organizations, users with historic ties to the forest, volunteer and stewardship groups, educators, and youth groups. This also includes management approaches that encourage working with neighboring land managers to implement projects at a scale that improves landscape scale connectivity across mixed ownerships where natural systems, such as watersheds and wildlife corridors, span multiple administrative boundaries.

4. Develop management approaches that can strategically leverage and streamline processes for engaging partners and volunteers during project implementation and monitoring.

5. Create management approaches that emphasize public education about the Gila NF's diverse ecological, social, and economic resources, the multiple-use sustained yield philosophy, public laws and regulations, shared use ethics, and management strategies.

6. Prepare desired conditions and management approaches aimed at connecting people—particularly youth and underserved populations—with public lands and nature.

Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies. Forest plans must be consistent with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies, but should not repeat those requirements. Therefore, there is a need to:

7. Remove components that are redundant with existing laws, regulations and Forest Service policy where possible. These should be incorporated by specific reference, which will allow the plan to be up to date with the most recent versions without amendments.

Resource Management Approaches. The current forest plan imposes internal management boundaries, often with different management direction. This artificially fragments the National Forest and creates unnecessary complexities. Therefore, there is a need to:

8. Reevaluate the number, arrangement, and boundaries related to current forest plan management areas, and base new ones on ecological boundaries such as ecological response units (ERUs).

9. Include plan direction that provides for adaptive management. There is also a need for plan components to be more strategic than prescriptive and for increased usage of management approaches based on best available science and monitoring.

10. Develop a monitoring program that collects relevant data, tracks progress toward desired conditions, distributes information consistently, and allows for a responsive adaptive management program with available resources, and uses updated terminology and methodologies especially for air quality, facilities, fire/fuels, lands, timber, and wilderness monitoring elements.

The cumulative effects of past management, combined with current management actions and inactions have contributed to departure from the natural range of variation and risk to ecological integrity.

Upland Vegetation. Past fire suppression, historic overgrazing, and other activities have disrupted many natural processes, such as wildfire and natural vegetation succession. In the meantime, factors such as climate change, drought, and uncharacteristic fires have made upland vegetation (i.e., terrestrial vegetation communities) more vulnerable to insects, diseases, and non-native species. To address these issues, there is a need to:

11. Develop desired conditions regarding vegetation structure, composition, and function, as well as objectives, standards, guidelines and management approaches that will promote ecological restoration, support ecological resilience, and minimize risks.

12. Develop desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and management approaches to better promote the restoration and maintenance of native herbaceous vegetation, limit woody species encroachment/infill and non-native invasive plant establishment.

Frequent Fire and Infrequent Fire Ecosystems. Restoring natural vegetation conditions can increase environmental resiliency, but restoring natural ecological processes such as fire is key to sustainability. Specifically, fire can reduce the risk of larger, more severe wildfires. However, restoring the historic fire regime faces challenges related to altered fuel characteristics, climate change, and operational, budget, policy, and political constraints. To address these issues, there is a need to:

13. Update current plan direction to better support an integrated resource approach to increase flexibility for the restoration and maintenance of fire as an ecological process while addressing firefighter and public safety and health concerns, especially in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).

14. Develop plan direction that recognizes the natural role of fire and its use as a management tool to help achieve desired conditions appropriate to both frequent and infrequent fire ERUs across the landscape.

15. Develop plan direction that allows for the flexibility to manage naturally ignited fires to meet land management objectives based on weather and site-specific conditions (e.g. fuel conditions, topography, safety concerns and values). These objectives may include the use of fire to reduce fuel accumulations, reduce the risk of future undesirable fires, improve wildlife habitat and range conditions, and improve watershed and overall forest health.

16. Update plan direction to address vegetation structure in within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), since these areas may have different desired conditions than non-WUI areas.

17. Consider landscape dynamics of old growth populations when replacing current plan direction with the revised plan content identified in statement 11.

Soils, Watershed, Riparian Ecosystems, and Aquatic Habitat. The past and present management factors impacting upland vegetation have also impacted soils, watersheds, riparian ecosystems and aquatic habitat. While the National Forest has no ability to control or influence cycles of drought, climate change, water allocation or use, there is a need to:

18. Develop desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and management approaches to restore, maintain and sustainably manage soil stability, hydrologic and nutrient cycling functions (aka soil condition) for both ecosystem and watershed health.

19. Develop desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and management approaches to inventory, restore, maintain and sustainably manage riparian areas, including those associated with springs, seeps and wetlands.

20. Develop plan direction that better recognizes the connections and interrelationships of ecosystems and watershed condition and facilitates integration of their management.

21. Develop desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and management approaches to restore, maintain and sustainably manage watershed condition.

22. Develop adaptive management approaches for water dependent resources and multiple-uses.

23. Update plan direction and develop management approaches to sustainably manage water resources via enhancing adaptation by anticipating and planning for disturbances from intense storms; reducing watershed vulnerability by maintaining and restoring resilient ecosystems; increasing water conservation and planning for reductions in upland water supplies; and avoiding actions that exacerbate drought effects.

Wildlife, Fish, and Plants. The Gila National Forest is home to hundreds of animal and plant species, some of which are found only on the Gila National Forest. For a few species, changing land use outside of the Gila National Forest has increased the species' reliance on Forest Service managed lands. Recent studies have identified 66 at-risk species, including six endangered, seven threatened, two proposed threatened and 51 species of conservation concern on the Gila National Forest. Restored, resilient, and connected habitats are necessary to maintaining species diversity across the National Forest. To help achieve this, there is a need to:

24. Develop desired conditions and standards and guidelines that support ecological conditions that contribute to the conservation and recovery of federally recognized species, as well as maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern and other native species.

25. Develop standards and guidelines that allow for managing toward terrestrial, riparian and aquatic habitat and population connectivity for terrestrial and aquatic species movement across the landscape, while allowing for the restoration of the range of native species.

Restoration Approaches and Tools. Many Gila National Forest ecosystems are not as resilient as they might be. Restoration treatments are not at the scale to affect change. Fire is an important tool, but it is not the only tool available to facilitate restoration. Mechanical and manual vegetation treatments, along with managed fire, are expected to occur more often and over larger areas, with a continued emphasis on landscape scale restoration. These types of treatments have met with variable success, often producing increases in shade intolerant, re-sprouting native species such as alligator juniper. While the Gila National Forest does not currently have extensive issues with invasive species, in the coming years, such species may compound the challenge to effectively restore ecosystem resiliency. To maintain restoration treatments and the trajectory toward desired conditions, there is a need to:

26. Update plan direction regarding integrated pest management and provide plan direction on the use of pesticides for restoration.

27. Develop standards and guidelines to address the presence of nonnative species by encouraging the removal of existing populations, limiting the introduction and spread of new populations while promoting the characteristic composition and condition of native species.

The previously identified risks to ecological integrity and sustainability may impact the Forest's ability to contribute to some of the social, cultural and economic benefits desired and enjoyed by people in local communities, surrounding areas and visitors to the area.

Recreation. The Gila National Forest features a diverse range of recreational opportunities, including opportunities for solitude. There are nearly 2,000 miles of trails in the Forest trail system, including almost 200 miles of recently designated motorized trails and more than 850 miles of wilderness trails. However, because of limited maintenance funds and uncharacteristic wildfire and post-fire flooding, many trails may be infrequently maintained and difficult to follow. Recreational demands, including permitted special uses, are increasing, while many recreational opportunities have limited availability on adjacent lands. Other challenges include sustainability under current funding levels and conflicting use demands. There is a need to:

28. Develop desired conditions, standards, guidelines and management approaches to address the long-term sustainability, changing trends in demands, and intended use of recreation infrastructure, trails, and facilities.

29. Update existing and develop new desired conditions, standards, and guidelines for management of recreation activities and permitted special uses that occur in areas that are sensitive or at risk of resource degradation due to high visitation.

30. Include guidelines and management approaches to implement public education and to anticipate demand and minimize conflicts between uses.

31. Update existing desired conditions, standards, guidelines and management approaches to emphasize the importance of scenery and recreation opportunity effects when planning projects across all Forest program areas.

32. Create desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and management approaches for cave management, backcountry river use, and rockclimbing since these activities are not addressed in the current Forest Plan.

33. Update plan direction for administration of the special uses program to be aligned with current National, Regional, and Forest policy direction.

34. Prepare desired conditions, standards, and guidelines to balance consideration of special uses requests with impacts to natural and cultural resources, wilderness character, and other forest users.

Designated Areas. Designated areas represent identified exceptional areas that have distinct or unique characteristics warranting special designation. These areas have management objectives to maintain their unique characteristics. The Gila National Forest contains the world's first designated wilderness and altogether has three large wilderness areas in relatively close proximity that total nearly 800,000 acres. Most permitted outfitter and guide use occurs within designated wilderness areas and is expected to grow with the demand for trophy elk hunting. Other designated areas include scenic byways, research natural areas, national recreation trails, and 254 miles of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. The plan revision process includes an inventory and evaluation process for lands and rivers that may be suitable for congressional designation, and other potential administrative designations (e.g. botanical, geological areas and research natural areas) will also be further considered. To address these unique management needs and requirements, there is a need to:

35. Update desired conditions, standards, guidelines and management approaches for managing existing or potential new designated areas to maintain desired character and values unique to each area.

36. Update plan direction for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) to follow the management policy and direction outlined in the 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan and to adapt desired conditions and standards from the Regional Foresters' CDNST plan revision considerations policy letter issued August 2016.

37. Update current standards and guidelines for completing permitted outfitter/guide use capacities within wilderness to inform management decisions in light of changing social and environmental conditions, and to continue to maintain alignment with National, Regional, and Forest policy direction.

Range. Most rangeland vegetation on the National Forest is in fair condition, with stable to upward trends. However, woody species encroachment, climate change, drought, and invasive species may reduce rangeland productivity. Future management that focuses on the restoration and maintenance of ecological integrity is required to address these sustainability issues. Fire restoration objectives and the protection of endangered and threatened species can pose range management challenges. Increased management flexibility that responds to climatic, operational or resource condition changes is necessary to address these challenges, and therefore there is a need to:

38. Update plan direction for livestock management that incorporates increased flexibility and adaptive management in order to restore and maintain ecological integrity of rangelands.

Timber and Special Forest Products. The National Forest provides timber and forest products, mainly to local communities and mills. Forest restoration and landscape-scale restoration projects can help sustain forest and watershed health, reduce potential for uncharacteristic wildfire, maintain or improve wildlife habitat, and maintain the ability to sustainably meet local demand. To facilitate these efforts, there is a need to:

39. Update timber suitability determinations consistent with updated plan desired conditions.

Infrastructure. Limited funding has led to an increasing amount of deferred infrastructure maintenance, affecting administrative buildings, recreation buildings, communication structures, lookout towers, airstrips, remote cabins, roads, trails, and range and wildlife developments. Roads and trails across the National Forest are important for access and fire management, and facilitate multiple-uses, but have potential negative ecological impacts. To help address these issues, there is a need to:

40. Develop plan direction and management approaches to ensure sustainable infrastructure (e.g., roads, trails, recreation and administrative facilities, range developments, airstrips, etc.) while being adaptive to budgets and resource needs (demand for services, activities, types of facilities).

41. Provide plan direction and management approaches for the maintenance prioritization process of the Gila's National Forest System roads.

42. Update plan direction and management approaches for decommissioning of unneeded roads that accounts for budgets/resource needs and constraints, but that also involves affected stakeholders.

Cultural and Historic Resources. With about 12,000 years of known human occupation and use, the National Forest includes numerous historic properties and traditional cultural properties as defined by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These sites provide valuable information and cultural connections. However, these sites are not fully inventoried and are vulnerable to natural and human processes such as erosion, wildfire, and recreational use. To help protect these sites, there is a need to:

43. Update plan direction to stabilize, preserve, interpret, and protect historic and sensitive properties (e.g., archaeological sites, historic structures, and traditional cultural properties).

44. Prepare plan direction that recognizes the inherent value and sensitivity of traditional cultural properties, while maintaining the security of information about such sites.

45. Develop desired conditions in the plan to address the alignment of cultural resource management objectives with other land and resource management objectives.

Areas of Tribal Importance. The National Forest works with 10 Native American tribes in four states on policies, plans, projects, programs, and activities that might affect tribal interests. Management challenges include changes in access, forest and watershed degradation, and land development and recreational interference with traditional activities. To help tribal interests and use, there is a need to:

46. Update plan direction on giving consideration to the value and importance of areas that may be identified as a sacred site or part of an important cultural landscape by tribes (also see Land Status and Ownership, Use and Access section below).

47. Develop management approaches that include opportunities for integrating Forest management with tribal needs through shared stewardship.

Traditional and Cultural Ways of Life. For many years, the lands of the Forest have provided economic, social, and religious value to Native Americans, Hispanics, and Anglo-American traditional communities. The continued use and access to the Forest contributes greatly to the continuation of local culture and tradition, and therefore there is a need to:

48. Provide management direction for historic and contemporary cultural uses, including both economic and noneconomic uses for tribes and for those traditional communities not considered under tribal relations (i.e., traditional Hispanic and Anglo communities).

Land Status and Ownership, Use, and Access. The Lands program faces many challenges, including access and encroachment issues, title claims, communication site demands, wildland-urban interface expansion, completing property boundary surveys, and fragmentation. To help address these issues, there is a need to:

49. Develop plan direction related to Forest Service land acquisitions, disposals, and exchanges that are not covered by the existing Forest Plan.

50. Prepare plan direction for the authorization, location, and inspection of current and future communication site infrastructure because there is an increasing demand on the Forest for these services.

51. Create plan direction that is more flexible to changes in technology and can be responsive to future needs and changes in communication site demand.

52. Include management approaches for the resolution of existing and prevention of new encroachment cases on the Forest.

53. Formulate plan direction that encourages the protection of existing public access and the acquisition of new public access opportunities to National Forest lands.

Energy and Minerals. Policies and regulations regarding personal collecting of rocks, minerals, and gold ore have been identified as an area of desired improvement. To improve accuracy and consistency in this area, there is a need to:

54. Include management approaches for education and communication of policies regarding recreational mining and non-commercial rock and mineral specimen collection activities.

Public participation in the planning process began prior to the May 2015 publication of a notice in the Federal Register that marked the official start of the assessment. A series of community conversations were held in March 2015 at Quemado, Reserve, Glenwood, Silver City, Mimbres and Truth or Consequences. The desired outcomes of these conversations were to introduce forest plan revision, identify expectations, opportunities and methods for communication and engagement, and build or enhance relationships between the Gila NF and its stakeholders. The information shared during these meetings were used to develop the Forest's Pubic Participation Strategy. The Public Participation Strategy and summaries of these conversations are available on the Gila NF's Plan Revision Web page at http://go.usa.gov/h88k.

Since March 2015, the Gila NF has presented on plan revision at 40 governmental and organizational meetings. Informational booths at over 15 special events such as county fairs have been an ongoing way to share materials summarizing the plan revision process. On-line and interactive classroom sessions to engage youth and educators were conducted by Western New Mexico University.

Another round of public meetings at the same locations was held in August 2015 to gather input for the assessment phase of plan revision. Participants were provided an overview of the assessment process, including the 15 topics identified in the 2012 Planning Rule. Opportunities were also provided for stakeholders to share knowledge, plans, and data for the assessment. This input was used in the development of parts of the ecological, and social, cultural and economic sections of the assessment including a section devoted to stakeholder input in most chapters.

In February 2016, the Gila NF and the Southwestern Regional Office participated in the 6th Natural History of the Gila Symposium hosted by Western New Mexico University. Ecological assessment data and analysis approaches were presented, including: an overview of forest plan revision, the analysis framework, state and transition modeling, vegetation, soil, water, at-risk species and a history of insects and disease.

The Forest released the draft assessment report in September 2016 and draft need-for-change document in October 2016 to the public and other stakeholders for feedback. Community meetings were held in communities surrounding the Forest (including Las Cruces) in late October to early November 2016 to discuss assessment key findings, collaborate to determine needs-for-change to the current plan, and continue the dialogue between the Forest and nearby residents, users, and interested individuals. All meeting materials have been posted online at http://go.usa.gov/h88k to provide an opportunity for people that couldn't attend the meetings to be able to view the materials, and to provide feedback. The Forest received 78 emails, letters, and forms providing feedback on the draft assessment report and need-for-change document, which were all considered as the Gila NF revised and finalized the documents. Stakeholder engagement will continue throughout the upcoming plan and EIS development.

Written comments received in response to this notice will be analyzed to complete the identification of the needs for change to the existing plan, further develop the proposed action, and identify potential significant issues. Significant issues will, in turn, form the basis for developing alternatives to the proposed action. Comments on the preliminary needs for change and proposed action will be most valuable if received by [45 days from date of publication in the Federal Register], and should clearly articulate the reviewer's opinions and concerns. Comments received in response to this notice, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered in the NEPA process; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents, nor will anonymous comments provide standing to the commenter for the eventual Objection process. See the below Objection process material, particularly the requirements for filing an objection, for how anonymous comments are handled during the objection process. Refer to the Forest's Web site (http://go.usa.gov/h88k) for information on when public meetings will be scheduled for refining the proposed action and identifying possible alternatives to the proposed action.

Preparation of the revised forest plan for the Gila National Forest began with the publication of a Notice of Assessment Initiation in the Federal Register on May 18, 2015 (80 FR 28222) and was initiated under the planning procedures contained in the 2012 Forest Service planning rule (36 CFR 219 (2012)).

No permits or licenses are needed for the development or revision of a forest plan.

The decision to approve the revised forest plan for the Gila National Forest will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR part 219 Subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). According to 36 CFR 219.53(a), those who may file an objection are individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to plan revision during the opportunities provided for public comment during the planning process.

The Needs for Change documentation, the Assessment Report, summaries of the public meetings and public meeting materials, and public comments are posted on the Forest's Web site at: http://go.usa.gov/h88k. As necessary or appropriate, the material available on this site will be further adjusted as part of the planning process using the provisions of the 2012 planning rule.

Persons with accessibility needs should contact the Eastern Regional Office no later than 10 working days before the scheduled meeting by sending an email to the following email address at [email protected].

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office by Tuesday, May 2, 2017. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at 202-376-7533.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=241; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-359-3613, conference ID number: 3585074. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=261. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-298-3465, conference ID number: 5446934. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=276. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

On April 19, 2017, the Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) initiated an investigation under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862), to determine the effects on the national security of imports of steel. On April 20, 2017, the President signed a memorandum directing the Secretary to proceed expeditiously in conducting his investigation and submit a report on his findings to the President. The President further directed that if the Secretary finds that steel is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, the Secretary shall recommend actions and steps that should be taken to adjust steel imports so that they will not threaten to impair the national security.

This investigation is being undertaken in accordance with part 705 of the National Security Industrial Base Regulations (15 CFR parts 700 to 709) (“NSIBR”). Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or information pertinent to this investigation to the Office of Technology Evaluation, U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”), no later than May 31, 2017.

The Department is particularly interested in comments and information directed to the criteria listed in §  705.4 of the NSIBR as they affect national security, including the following: (a) Quantity of steel or other circumstances related to the importation of steel; (b) Domestic production and productive capacity needed for steel to meet projected national defense requirements; (c) Existing and anticipated availability of human resources, products, raw materials, production equipment, and facilities to produce steel; (d) Growth requirements of the steel industry to meet national defense requirements and/or requirements to assure such growth; (e) The impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of the steel industry; (f) The displacement of any domestic steel causing substantial unemployment, decrease in the revenues of government, loss of investment or specialized skills and productive capacity, or other serious effects; (g) The displacement of any domestic steel causing substantial unemployment, decrease in the revenues of government, loss of investment or specialized skills and productive capacity, or other serious effects; (h) Relevant factors that are causing or will cause a weakening of our national economy; and (i) Any other relevant factors.

Material that is business confidential information will be exempted from public disclosure as provided for by §  705.6 of the regulations. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission, then file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential submission which can be placed in the public file. Communications from agencies of the United States Government will not be made available for public inspection. Please note that the submission of comments for presentation at the public hearing is separate from the request for written comments.

The Bureau of Industry and Security does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. Requesters should first view the Bureau's Web page, which can be found at https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/ (see “Electronic FOIA” heading). If requesters cannot access the Web site, they may call 202-482-0795 for assistance. The records related to this assessment are made accessible in accordance with the regulations published in part 4 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 4.1 et seq.).

Consistent with the interest of the U.S. Department of Commerce in soliciting public comments on issues affecting U.S. industry and national security, the Department is holding a public hearing as part of the investigation. The hearing will assist the Department in determining whether imports of steel threaten to impair the national security and in recommending remedies if such a threat is found to exist. Public comments at the hearing should address the criteria listed in §  705.4 of the NSIBR as they affect national security described above.

The hearing will be held on May 24, 2017 at the U.S. Department of Commerce auditorium, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. local time and conclude at 1:00 p.m. local time.

The Department encourages interested public participants to present their views orally at the hearing. Any person wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit a written request to the Department of Commerce at the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The request to participate in the hearing must be accompanied by a copy of a summary of the oral presentation. The written request and summary must be received by the Department no later than Wednesday, May 17, 2017. In addition, the request to speak should contain (1) the name and address of the person requesting to make a presentation; (2) a daytime phone number where the person who would be making the oral presentation may be contacted before the hearing; (3) the organization or company they represent; and (4) an email address.

Please note that the submission of comments for presentation at the public hearing is separate from the request for written comments. Since it may be necessary to limit the number of persons making presentations, the written request to participate in the public hearing should describe the individual's interest in the hearing and, where appropriate, explain why the individual is a proper representative of a group or class of persons that has such an interest. If all interested parties cannot be accommodated at the hearing, the summaries of the oral presentations will be used to allocate speaking time and to ensure that a full range of comments is heard.

Each person selected to make a presentation will be notified by the Department of Commerce no later than 8:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Friday, May 19, 2017. The Department will arrange the presentation times for the speakers. Persons selected to be heard are requested to bring 20 copies of their oral presentation and of all exhibits to the hearing site on the day of the hearing. All such material must be of a size consistent with ease of handling, transportation and filing. While large exhibits may be used during a hearing, copies of such exhibits in reduced size must be provided to the panel. Written submissions by persons not selected to make presentations will be made part of the public record of the proceeding. Any person, whether presenting or not, may submit a written statement through May 31, 2017—7 days after the hearing date. Confidential business information may not be submitted at a public hearing. In the event confidential business information is submitted it will be handled according to the same procedures applicable to such information provided in the course of an investigation. See 15 CFR 705.6. The hearing will be recorded.

Copies of the requests to participate in the public hearing, and the transcript of the hearing will be maintained on the Bureau of Industry and Security's Web page, which can be found at http://www.bis.doc.gov (see Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) heading). If the requesters cannot access the Web site, they may call (202) 482-0795 for assistance. The records related to this assessment are made accessible in accordance with the regulations published in part 4 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 4.1 et seq.).

The Department reserves the right to select the persons to be heard at the hearing, to schedule their respective presentations, and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the hearing. Each speaker will be limited to 10 minutes, and comments must be directly related to the criteria listed in 15 CFR 705.4 of the regulations. Attendees will be seated on a first-come, first-served basis.

A Department official will be designated to preside at the hearing. The presiding officer shall determine all procedural matters during the hearing. Representatives from the Department, and other U.S. Government agencies as appropriate, will make up the hearing panel. This will be a fact-finding proceeding; it will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type hearing. Only members of the hearing panel may ask questions, and there will be no cross-examination of persons presenting statements. However, questions submitted to the presiding officer in writing may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be posed to the presenter. No formal rules of evidence will apply to the hearing.

Any further procedural rules for the proper conduct of the hearing will be announced by the presiding officer.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be received by the Department of Commerce no later than Thursday, May 11, 2017 at the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

The Petitions

On March 28, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom, filed in proper form on behalf of Charter Steel, Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Nucor Corporation (collectively, the petitioners).1 The AD petitions were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) petitions on imports from Italy and Turkey. The petitioners are domestic producers of wire rod.2

On March 31, 2017, and April 6, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.3 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on April 4, 2017, and on April 7, 2017, respectively.4 On April 5, the petitioners filed a submission demonstrating that, for certain countries, the prices they obtained for normal value were below the production costs. As a result, they compared export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to normal value (NV) using constructed value (CV).5

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of wire rod from Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.6

Because the Petitions were filed on March 28, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) for all investigations except Belarus is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. Because Belarus is a non-market economy country, the POI for that investigation is July 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

The product covered by these investigations is wire rod from Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice.

During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7

As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).8 The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, May 8, 2017, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, May 18, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the deadline for initial comments.9

The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).10 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to provide comments on the appropriate physical characteristics of wire rod to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

Subsequent to the publication of this notice, the Department will be releasing a proposed list of physical characteristics and product-comparison criteria, and interested parties will have the opportunity to provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics; and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics used by manufacturers to describe wire rod, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially-meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

The Department intends to establish a deadline for relevant comments and submissions at the time it releases the proposed list of physical characteristics and product-comparison criteria. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom less-than-fair-value investigations.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,11 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.12

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that wire rod, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.13

In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. The petitioners provided 2016 production of the domestic like product for all supporters of the Petitions, and compared this to the total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.14 We relied on data the petitioners provided for purposes of measuring industry support.15

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.16 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).17 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.18 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.19 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting that the Department initiate.20

The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. In addition, with regard to Korea, Russia, Spain, Turkey, and Ukraine, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the three percent negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 21

With regard to Belarus, Italy, South Africa, the UAE, and the United Kingdom, while the allegedly dumped imports from each of these countries do not individually exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility, the petitioners provide data demonstrating that the aggregate import share from these five countries is 10.15 percent, which exceeds the seven percent threshold established by the exception in section 771(24)(A)(ii) of the Act.22 Therefore, the subject imports from these countries are not negligible for purposes of the material injury analysis in these Petitions.23

The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; declines in production capacity, net sales, and U.S. producers' average U.S. shipments unit value; negative impacts on domestic industry employment, including declines in wages paid to production-related workers; declines in financial performance; and lost sales and revenues.24 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.25

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of wire rod from Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

For Turkey, the petitioners based U.S. price on EP using price quotes for sales of wire rod produced in, and exported from, the subject county and offered for sale in the United States.26 For Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, the UAE, and Ukraine, the petitioners based EP on average unit values (AUVs) of publicly available import data.27 Where applicable, the petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses and trading company/importer mark-ups, consistent with the terms of sale.28

For Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, because the petitioners had reason to believe the sale was made through a U.S. affiliate, the petitioners based CEP on a price quote/offer for sale of wire rod produced in, and exported from, those countries.29 For the United Kingdom, because the petitioners had reason to believe the first transaction relating to the entry of goods into the United States was to a U.S. affiliate, the petitioners based CEP on AUVs of publicly available import data.30 The petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses consistent with the delivery terms.31 Where applicable, the petitioners also deducted from U.S. price trading company/importer mark-ups.32

For Korea, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, and Ukraine, the petitioners provided home market price information obtained through market research for wire rod produced in, and offered for sale in, each of these countries.33 For all five of these countries, the petitioners provided a declaration from a market researcher for the price information.34 Where applicable, the petitioners made deductions for movement expenses, taxes, and imputed credit expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.35

For Korea, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, the petitioners also provided information that sales of wire rod in the respective home markets were made at prices below the cost of production (COP) and also calculated NV based on CV.36 For Italy, Spain, the UAE, and the United Kingdom, the petitioners were unable to obtain home market price quotes for wire rod and calculated NV based on CV.37 For further discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see below.38

With respect to Belarus, the petitioners stated that the Department has found Belarus to be a non-market economy (NME) country in prior administrative proceedings in which Belarus has been involved.39 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for Belarus has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product for Belarus is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.40 In the course of this investigation, all parties, and the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

The petitioners claim that South Africa is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of Belarus and it is a significant producer of the merchandise under consideration.41

Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we believe it is appropriate to use South Africa as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs no later than 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Belarusian producers/exporters is not reasonably available, the petitioners relied on a surrogate company's actual consumption of direct materials, labor, energy, packing materials, and financial ratios from a South African producer as an estimate of Belarusian manufacturers' FOPs.42 The petitioners valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from South Africa,43 and used the average POI exchange rate to convert the data to U.S. dollars.44

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), SG&A, financial expenses, and packing expenses. The petitioners calculated COM based on the experience of a surrogate producer, adjusted for known differences between the surrogate producer and the producer(s) of the respective country (i.e., Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom), during the proposed POI.45 Using publicly available data to account for price differences, the petitioners multiplied the surrogate usage quantities by the submitted value of the inputs used to manufacture wire rod in each country.46 For Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom, labor and energy rates were derived from publicly available sources multiplied by the product-specific usage rates.47 For Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom, to determine factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates, the petitioners relied on financial statements of companies they asserted were producers of identical or comparable merchandise operating in the respective foreign country.48 For the UAE, because the financial statements of companies that were producers of identical or comparable merchandise operating in the respective foreign country were not available, the petitioners relied on the financial data from a U.S. producer.49

For Korea, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, because certain home market prices fell below COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, the petitioners calculated NVs based on CV for those countries.50 For Italy, Spain, the UAE, and the United Kingdom, the petitioners indicated they were unable to obtain home market or third country prices; accordingly, the petitioners based NV only on CV for those countries.51 Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A, financial expenses, packing expenses, and profit. The petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, and financial expenses, to calculate COP.52 The petitioners relied on the financial statements of the same producers that they used for calculating manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses to calculate the profit rate.53 For South Africa, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom, because the relevant financial statements indicated that the companies were operating at a loss, the petitioners did not include profit in CV.54

Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of wire rod from Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP, or CEP, to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for wire rod are as follows: (1) Belarus ranges from 161.75 to 280.02 percent;55 (2) Italy is 18.89 percent; 56 (3) Korea ranges from 33.96 to 43.25 percent; 57 (4) Russia ranges from 214.06 to 756.93 percent; 58 (5) South Africa ranges from 128.66 to 142.26 percent; 59 (6) Spain is 32.70 percent; 60 (7) Turkey is 37.67 percent; 61 (8) Ukraine ranges from 21.23 to 44.03 percent; 62 (9) the UAE is 84.10 percent; 63 and (10) the United Kingdom is 147.63 percent.64

Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on wire rod from Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of wire rod from Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

On June 29, 2015, the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.65 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.66 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these investigations.67

The petitioners named a single company in Belarus,68 12 companies in Italy,69 16 companies in Korea,70 21 companies in Russia,71 nine companies in Spain,72 three companies in South Africa,73 22 companies in Turkey,74 four companies in Ukraine,75 three companies in the UAE,76 and six companies in the United Kingdom, 77 as producers/exporters of wire rod. Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, in the event the Department determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's resources, where appropriate, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed with the scope in Appendix I, below. We also intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO on the record within five business days of announcement of the initiation of these investigations. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of these investigations. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for the initial comments.

The petitioners identified only one company as a producer/exporter of wire rod in Belarus: Byelorussian Steel Works.78 We currently know of no additional producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration from Belarus and the petitioners provided information from an independent third-party source as support.79 Accordingly, the Department intends to examine all known producers/exporters in the investigation for Belarus (i.e., the company cited above for this investigation).

In addition, with respect to the Belarus, although we intend to select the company identified in the petition as a mandatory respondent, in accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in cases involving NME countries, other exporters/producers of wire rod from Belarus may submit a response to the Department's quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires for consideration of respondent selection. Exporters/producers of wire rod from Belarus can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. The Q&V response must be submitted by all Belarusian exporters/producers no later than May 1, 2017. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

Comments for the above-referenced investigations must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET by the dates noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.80 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in the Belarus investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.81 Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and are selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that respondents from Belarus submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by their respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.

The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of wire rod from Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, and/or the United Kingdom are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.83 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 84 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 85 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.86 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.87 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 88 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

The Petitions

On March 28, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Italy and Turkey, filed in proper form on behalf of Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., Nucor Corporation, Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Charter Steel (collectively, the petitioners). The CVD Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of wire rod from each of the above countries, in addition to Belarus, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, the Republic of South Africa, Spain, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.1 The petitioners are domestic producers of wire rod.2

On March 31, April 3, and April 4, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.3 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on April 4 and April 6, 2017.4

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Governments of Italy (GOI) and Turkey (GOT) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to imports of wire rod from Italy and Turkey, respectively, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing wire rod in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.5

Because the Petitions were filed on March 28, 2017, the period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

The product covered by these investigations is wire rod from Italy and Turkey. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice.

During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.6

As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).7 The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with the interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)) all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, May 8, 2017, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, May 18, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.8

The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).9 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOI and the GOT of the receipt of the Petitions, and provided representatives of the GOI and the GOT the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petitions. Consultations with the GOI and the GOT were held at the Department's main building on April 11, 2017. The GOI submitted its consultation comments in writing to the Department on April 13, 2017.10

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,11 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.12

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that wire rod, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.13

In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. The petitioners provided 2016 production of the domestic like product for all supporters of the Petitions, and compared this to the total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.14 We relied on data the petitioners provided for purposes of measuring industry support.15

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.16 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).17 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.18 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.19 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations they are requesting that the Department initiate.20

Because Italy and Turkey are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Italy and Turkey materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, with regard to Turkey, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 21

While the allegedly subsidized imports from Italy do not individually meet the statutory negligibility threshold of three percent, the petitioners allege and provide supporting evidence that there is the potential that imports from Italy will imminently exceed the negligibility threshold and, therefore, are not negligible for purposes of a threat determination.22 The petitioners' arguments regarding the potential for imports to imminently exceed the negligibility threshold are consistent with the statutory criterial for “negligibility in threat analysis” under section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which provides that imports shall not be treated as negligible if there is a potential that subject imports from a country will imminently exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility.

The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; declines in production capacity, net sales, and U.S. producers' average U.S. shipments unit value; negative impacts on domestic industry employment, including declines in wages paid to production-relate workers; declines in financial performance; and lost sales and revenues.23 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.24

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that (1) alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting the allegations.

The petitioners allege that producers/exporters of wire rod in Italy and Turkey benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the governments of these countries, respectively. The Department examined the Petitions and finds that they comply with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, and/or exporters of wire rod from Italy and Turkey receive countervailable subsidies from the governments of these countries, respectively.

Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.25 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.26 The amendments to sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these CVD investigations.27

Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 14 of the 15 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Italy CVD Initiation Checklist.

Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 21 of the 22 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist.

A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation is available on ACCESS.

In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

The petitioners named 13 companies as producers/exporters of wire rod in Italy and 22 in Turkey.28 Following standard practice in CVD investigations, the Department will, where appropriate, select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of wire rod during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers. We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of the announcement of the initiation of this investigation. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET on the seventh calendar day after publication of this notice. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for initial comments.

Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. If respondent selection is necessary, within 20 days of publication of this notice, we intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection based upon comments received from interested parties and our analysis of the record information.

In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the GOI and GOT via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of wire rod from Italy and Turkey are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.29 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.30 Otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.31 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 32 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.

Background

On March 20, 2017, the Department published the final results of the 2014-2015 administrative review in the Federal Register.1 On March 22, 2017, The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (collectively Stanley) filed a timely allegation that the Department made a ministerial error in the Final Results and requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(f), that the Department correct the ministerial error. We received a timely reply to Stanley's comments from Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (the petitioner) on March 27, 2017, and a request that the Department correct an additional ministerial error.

The merchandise covered by the order includes certain steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, 7317.00.75, and 7907.00.6000.2 The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description is dispositive.3

Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), defines “ministerial error” as including “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.” 4 After analyzing all parties' comments, we have determined in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f), that certain ministerial errors were made in the Final Results. For a detailed discussion of these ministerial errors, as well as the Department's analysis of these errors, see Ministerial Error Memorandum.

In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results of this administrative review of nails from the PRC. The rate for the companies not selected for individual examination is equal to the calculated margin of the sole mandatory respondent, Stanley, whose margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on adverse facts available. The dumping margins for the administrative review are as follows:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these amended final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs Border Protection shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b).

Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).6 Where the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.7 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.8 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.9 We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate.

Pursuant to the Department's assessment practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide entity rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide entity rate.10

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective retroactively on any entries made on or after March 20, 2017, the date of publication of the Final Results, for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the “Amended Final Results” section (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period. (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-Wide rate of 118.04 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

These amended final results and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

Section 703(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in CVD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A) That “the alleged countervailable subsidy” is inconsistent with the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement of the World Trade Organization; and (B) that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in AD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A)(i) That there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) that the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.

Section 351.206 of the Department's regulations provides that, in general, imports must increase by at least 15 percent during the “relatively short period” to be considered “massive,” 1 and defines a “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later.2 The regulations also provide, however, that if the Department finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time.3

To determine whether there exists a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that an alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, in accordance with section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department considered the evidence on the record pertaining to Petitioner's allegation that the Export Development Canada: Export Guarantee Program is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement. Specifically, as described in our initiation checklist,4 with regard to this program, Petitioner has alleged the elements of a subsidy,5 supported with information reasonably available to Petitioner, that appears to be export contingent, which would render it inconsistent with the SCM Agreement. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that an alleged subsidy in the CVD investigation is inconsistent with the SCM agreement.

In order to determine whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department generally considers current or previous AD orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders imposed by other countries with regard to imports of the same merchandise. The Department, therefore, considers that it has previously issued an AD order on softwood lumber from Canada, based on nearly identical harmonized tariff schedule numbers.6 Furthermore, and with respect to determining whether there is a history of material injury, the Department determines that it is appropriate to rely on the International Trade Commission's (ITC) section 129 affirmative threat of material injury determination, and finds a history of material injury based on this determination.7 Therefore, we preliminarily find that there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports of the subject merchandise.

In determining whether there are “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to sections 703(e)(1)(B) and 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the “base period”) to a comparable period of at least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the “comparison period”). Imports normally will be considered massive when imports during the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during the base period.

Based on evidence provided by Petitioner, the Department finds that, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(i), importers, exporters or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the filing of the petition, that a proceeding was likely. Specifically, the Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) between the United States and Canada expired on October 12, 2015, and expressly provided for a “standstill” period of 12 months after the expiration of the agreement, during which the U.S. domestic industry agreed to not file AD/CVD petitions.8 Because of the unique circumstance of the expiration of the SLA in October 2015, importers and Canadian producers/exporters were aware that potential AD/CVD petitions could be filed as early as October 12, 2016. Thus, the Department finds that, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(i), importers, exporters or producers had reason to believe that proceedings were likely following expiration of the SLA on October 12, 2015.

In order to determine whether there has been a massive surge in imports for each mandatory respondent (Canfor Corporation (Canfor), Resolute FP Canada Inc. (Resolute), Tolko Marketing Sales Ltd. (Tolko), West Fraser Mills Ltd. (West Fraser)) and J.D. Irving (the voluntary respondent in the CVD investigation), the Department compared the total volume of shipments from October 2015 through June 2016 (i.e., the comparison period) with the preceding nine-month period of January 2015 through September 2015 (i.e., the base period).9 For “all others,” the Department compared Global Trade Atlas (GTA) data for the period October 2015 through June 2016 with the preceding nine-month period of January 2015 through September 2015.10 The Department first subtracted the shipments reported by the mandatory respondents and J.D. Irving from the GTA data. Based on these comparisons, we preliminarily determine that J.D. Irving and “all others” had massive surges in imports.11 The shipment data do not demonstrate massive surges in imports for Canfor, Resolute, Tolko, and West Fraser.

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.

The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

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).

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action with respect to environmental consequences on the human environment.

Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion.

We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process in making a final decision on the IHA request.

NMFS received a request from the City of San Diego (City) for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to Coast Boulevard improvements in La Jolla, California. The City's request was for harassment only and NMFS concurs that mortality is not expected to result from this activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

The City's application for incidental take authorization was received on December 16, 2016. On March 1, 2017, we deemed the City's application for authorization to be adequate and complete. The planned activity is not expected to exceed one year, hence we do not expect subsequent MMPA incidental harassment authorizations would be issued for this particular activity.

The planned activities include improvements to an existing public parking lot, sidewalk, and landscaping areas located on the bluff tops above Children's Pool, a public beach located in La Jolla, California. Species that are expected to be taken by the planned activity include harbor seal, California sea lion, and northern elephant seal. Take by Level B harassment only is expected; no injury or mortality of marine mammals is expected to result from the proposed activity. This would be the first IHA issued for this activity, if issued. The City applied for, and was granted, IHAs in 2013 2014 and 2015 (NMFS 2013; 2014; 2015) for a lifeguard station demolition and construction project at Children's Pool beach. NMFS published notices in the Federal Register announcing the issuance of these IHAs on July 8, 2013 (78 FR 40705), June 6, 2014 (79 FR 32699), and July 13, 2015 (80 FR 39999), respectively. The City also applied for, and was granted, an IHA in 2016 (NMFS 2016) for a sand sampling project at Children's Pool beach. NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the issuance of the IHA on June 3, 2016 (81FR 35739).

The City of San Diego plans to conduct improvements to an existing public parking lot, sidewalk, and landscaping areas located on the bluff tops above Children's Pool to upgrade public access and safety. Demolition activities would include the removal of existing parking lot paving; concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk; and the removal of existing irrigation and plant materials. Construction activities would include subgrade preparation, asphalt paving, and marking of parking stalls; pouring of concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk; construction of rock walls, installation of fencing, placement of landscape boulders, installation of landscaping and irrigation; and finishing and clean up. The City has requested an IHA for incidental take, via Level B harassment only, of harbor seals that routinely haul out on the beach below the project, as well as California sea lions and northern elephant seals that occasionally haul out on the beach.

The City has determined that noise from demolition and construction associated with the planned project has the potential to result in behavioral harassment of pinnipeds on Children's Pool. No injury or mortality of marine mammals is expected as a result of the planned activities. The expectation that behavioral harassment of pinnipeds would result from the planned activities is based on monitoring reports from the recent demolition and construction of the Children's Pool lifeguard station project, for which the City was issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations in 2013, 2014 and 2015 (Hanan & Associates 2016).

The planned project would occur from June 1, 2017 through December 14, 2017. Activities would occur Monday through Saturday only, and no work would be planned on all applicable California and Federal holidays. There would be a total of 164 available days during which project activities could occur. No construction would occur during the Seal Pupping Season Moratorium (December 15 to May 15) and for an additional two weeks to accommodate lactation and weaning of late season pups. Thus construction would not occur from December 15th to May 29th. The IHA, if issued, would be valid from June 1, 2017 through December 14, 2017.

The location of the project would be La Jolla, California. All planned project related activities would occur atop the 20 to 40-foot bluffs above Children's Pool beach, adjacent to the Children's Pool Lifeguard Station located at 8271/2 Coast Boulevard, La Jolla, California (See Figure 1 of the City's IHA application).

Children's Pool beach was created in 1932 by building a breakwater wall that allowed for a protected pool for swimming. Since then, the pool has partially filled with sand and the beach has widened to approximately 50 meter (m) (164 feet (ft)) at low tide. The planned project would include improvements to an existing public parking lot, sidewalk, and landscaping areas located on top of a coastal bluff above Children's Pool beach. Components of the project include the demolition and construction of an asphalt parking lot; concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk; placement of landscape boulders; and the delivery and hauling away of materials. These components of the project would require the use of a variety of heavy equipment, machinery, and trucks, such as concrete breaker, jackhammer, backhoe, bobcat, dump trucks, cement/pump truck, paver, and roller. See Table 1 for a description of the various project components and potential associated sound source levels (see “Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat” later in this document for a discussion of potential effects of acoustic sources on marine mammals).

The equipment planned for use during the proposed project is very similar to that used during the demolition and construction of the Children's Pool lifeguard station project. Based on monitoring reports associated with IHAs issued for the demolition and construction of the Children's Pool lifeguard station project, equipment used for that project caused sound levels that resulted harassment (Level B) of pinnipeds at Children's Pool beach. The highest sound levels estimated during construction of the Children's Pool lifeguard station were 100 to 110 decibels (dB) root mean squared (rms). Results of acoustic monitoring during the lifeguard station project showed peak values of 91 to 103 dB rms within 15 to 20 m (49 to 66 ft) of construction activities (Hanan & Associates 2016).

Children's Pool is designated as a shared-use beach. The beach and surrounding waters are used for swimming, surfing, kayaking, diving, tide pooling, and nature watching. Harbor seals, in particular, draw many visitors. During the harbor seal pupping season (December 15 through May 15), the beach is closed to the public. Outside of the pupping season, beach access and recreational uses are permitted by the City, provided that there is no direct harassment of harbor seals. A guideline rope strung along the upper part of the beach, as well as signage, encourage the public to respect the seals in the area and view them at a safe distance. Studies indicate that harbor seals are habituated to human presence at Children's Pool (Tierra Data 2015); however, habituation or reaction to human activity depends on the individual seal and the circumstances.

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”).

Three species are considered to co-occur with the City's planned activities: Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), which are by far the dominant observed marine mammal in the project area, as well as California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) and northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) which also occasionally haul out in the project area, in far lower numbers. This section provides summary information regarding local occurrence of these species. We have reviewed the City's detailed species descriptions, including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the City's IHA application, as well as to NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), instead of reprinting all of the information here. Additional general information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).

Northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) and Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus townsendi) have been observed at beaches near the project location on rare occasions, and a northern fur seal was recently observed hauled out at La Jolla Cove, less than a mile from Children's Pool beach (pers comm D. Hanan, Hanan & Associates, to D. Youngkin, NMFS, Feb 4, 2016). Beginning in January 2015, elevated strandings of Guadalupe fur seal pups and juveniles were observed in California. The Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events determined that the ongoing stranding event meets the criteria for an Unusual Mortality event (UME) and declared strandings of Guadalupe fur seals from 2015 through 2017 to be one continuous UME. The causes and mechanisms of this UME remain under investigation. Fur seals do not generally to haul out in urban mainland beaches such as Children's Pool, and their presence would likely be attributed to sickness or injury if they were observed in the project location. Therefore, their occurrence at Children's Pool would be considered extralimital and would not be expected. Thus these species are not considered further in this proposed IHA. The planned activities would not be conducted if marine mammal species other than those proposed for authorization in this document were present on Children's Pool.

Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the project location and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including PBR, where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). For status of species, we provide information regarding U.S. regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA. Abundance estimates presented here represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. PBR, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population, is considered in concert with known sources of ongoing anthropogenic mortality to assess the population-level effects of the anticipated mortality from a specific project (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.

All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in NMFS's SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 2016). Please see the SARs, available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance.

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and estuarine waters and shoreline areas of the northern hemisphere from temperate to polar regions. The eastern North Pacific subspecies is found from Baja California north to the Aleutian Islands and into the Bering Sea. Multiple lines of evidence support the existence of geographic structure among harbor seal populations from California to Alaska (Carretta et al., 2016). However, because stock boundaries are difficult to meaningfully draw from a biological perspective, three separate harbor seal stocks are recognized for management purposes along the west coast of the continental U.S.: (1) Washington inland waters (2) Oregon and Washington coast, and (3) California (Carretta et al., 2016). Placement of a stock boundary at the California-Oregon border is not based on biology but is considered a political and jurisdictional convenience (Carretta et al., 2016). In addition, harbor seals may occur in Mexican waters, but these animals are not considered part of the California stock. Only the California stock is expected to be found in the project area.

Harbor seals are not protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); the California stock is not listed as depleted under the MMPA, and is not considered a strategic stock under the MMPA because annual human-caused mortality (43) is significantly less than the calculated potential biological removal (PBR; 1,641) (Carretta et al., 2016). The population appears to be stabilizing at what may be its carrying capacity and fishery mortality is declining. The best abundance estimate of the California stock of harbor seals is 30,968 and the minimum population size of this stock is 27,348 individuals (Carretta et al., 2016).

The beaches and rocks at, or near, the Children's Pool are known haul out sites for harbor seals. Starting in the mid-1990s there was an increase in numbers of harbor seals using the beaches and rocks in the area around Children's Pool (Yochem and Stewart 1998). As a result, the City commissioned several studies for harbor seal abundance trends at this site (Yochem and Stewart 1998; Hanan & Associates 2004, 2011). Abundances at any given time may range from a low of 0 to 15 seals to a maximum that rarely exceeds 200 seals at Children's Pool, and 250 individuals in the vicinity (Linder 2011; Hanan & Associates 2014).

When abundances are low, seals tend to cluster on the western side of Children's Pool, and when abundances are high, the seals spread out along the beach. A limiting factor to the maximum number of individuals observed at Children's Pool at any given time likely relates to the area available for haulouts (Linder 2011). Several factors influence the variability in harbor seal abundance, including daily foraging and resting patterns, season, weather conditions, and movements by transient individuals. Generally, the highest abundances occur during the months of April and May, at the end of the pupping season and beginning of the molting season (Linder 2011).

Radio tagging and photographic studies have identified that only a portion of seals utilizing a haulout site are present at any specific moment or day (Hanan 1996, 2005; Gilbert et.al. 2005; Harvey and Goley 2011; Linder 2011; Hanan & Associates 2014). These studies further indicate that seals are constantly moving along the coast, including to/from offshore islands (California Channel Islands, Las Islas Coronados). Linder (2011) estimated that there may be as many as 600 harbor seals using Children's Pool beach during a year associated with the coastal movements of transient individuals, and suggested that the haul out at Children's Pool Beach is possibly part of a regional network of interconnected resting and pupping sites.

California sea lions range from the Gulf of California north to the Gulf of Alaska, with breeding areas located in the Gulf of California, western Baja California, and southern California. Five genetically distinct geographic populations have been identified: (1) Pacific Temperate, (2) Pacific Subtropical, (3) Southern Gulf of California, (4) Central Gulf of California and (5) Northern Gulf of California (Schramm et al., 2009). Rookeries for the Pacific Temperate population are found within U.S. waters and just south of the U.S.-Mexico border, and animals belonging to this population may be found from the Gulf of Alaska to Mexican waters off Baja California. Animals belonging to other populations (e.g., Pacific Subtropical) may range into U.S. waters during non-breeding periods. For management purposes, a stock of California sea lions comprising those animals at rookeries within the U.S. is defined (i.e., the U.S. stock of California sea lions) (Carretta et al., 2016). Pup production at the Coronado Islands rookery in Mexican waters is considered an insignificant contribution to the overall size of the Pacific Temperate population (Lowry and Maravilla-Chavez, 2005).

California sea lions are not protected under the ESA and the U.S. stock of California sea lions is not listed as depleted under the MMPA. Total annual human-caused mortality (389) is substantially less than the PBR (estimated at 9,200 per year); therefore, California sea lions are not considered a strategic stock under the MMPA. There are indications that the California sea lion may have reached or is approaching carrying capacity, although more data are needed to confirm that leveling in growth persists (Carretta et al., 2016). The best abundance estimate of the U.S. stock is 296,750 and the minimum population size of this stock is 153,337 individuals (Carretta et al., 2016).

Beginning in January 2013, elevated strandings of California sea lion pups were observed in southern California, with live sea lion strandings nearly three times higher than the historical average. Findings to date indicate that a likely contributor to the large number of stranded, malnourished pups was a change in the availability of sea lion prey for nursing mothers, especially sardines. The Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events determined that the ongoing stranding event meets the criteria for a UME and declared California sea lion strandings from 2013 through 2016 to be one continuous UME. The causes and mechanisms of this event remain under investigation (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/californiasealions2013.htm).

California sea lions have been observed in the water, or on the beach or rocks at and near Children's Pool, though these areas are used only occasionally as haulout locations for the species (Yochem and Stewart 1998; Hanan & Associates 2004, 2011; Linder 2011). Monitoring associated with the Children's Pool Lifeguard Station construction project from June 28, 2015-June 27, 2016 documented a total of 71 California sea lions on Children's Pool beach, as well as 83 California sea lions on seal rock (an outcropping approximately 91 m north of the beach); five California sea lions on South Casa Beach; and one California sea lion on the offshore reef off South Casa Beach (Hanan & Associates 2016). Observers recorded data only during construction, so it is possible there were more days throughout the year in which California sea lions hauled out on the beach. Evaluation of Children's Pool docent data from 2014 to 2016 (Seal Conservancy 2016), indicates that California sea lions were observed on Children's Pool beach on 67 days in 2014, 14 days in 2015, and 95 days in 2016.

Northern elephant seals gather at breeding areas, located primarily on offshore islands of Baja California and California, from approximately December to March before dispersing for feeding. Males feed near the eastern Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf of Alaska, while females feed at sea south of 45° N (Stewart and Huber, 1993; Le Boeuf et al., 1993). Adults then return to land between March and August to molt, with males returning later than females, before dispersing again to their respective feeding areas between molting and the winter breeding season. Populations of northern elephant seals in the U.S. and Mexico are derived from a few tens or hundreds of individuals surviving in Mexico after being nearly hunted to extinction (Stewart et al., 1994). Given the recent derivation of most rookeries, no genetic differentiation would be expected. Although movement and genetic exchange continues between rookeries, most elephant seals return to their natal rookeries when they start breeding (Huber et al., 1991). The California breeding population is now demographically isolated from the Baja California population and is considered to be a separate stock.

Northern elephant seals are not protected under the ESA and the California breeding population is not listed as depleted under the MMPA. Total annual human-caused mortality (8.8) is substantially less than the PBR (estimated at 4,882 per year); therefore, northern elephant seals are not considered a strategic stock under the MMPA. Modeling of pup counts indicates that the population has reached its Maximum Net Productivity Level, but has not yet reached carrying capacity (Carretta et al., 2016). The best abundance estimate of the California breeding population of northern elephant seals is 179,000 and the minimum population size of this stock is 81,368 individuals (Carretta et al., 2016).

Northern elephant seals have been observed in the water, or on the beach or rocks at and near Children's Pool, though these areas are used only occasionally as haulout locations for the species (Yochem and Stewart 1998; Hanan & Associates 2004, 2011; Linder 2011). During monitoring associated with the Children's Pool Lifeguard Station construction project, juvenile northern elephant seals were documented on Children's Pool beach on a total of 26 days in the period from June 28, 2015-June 27, 2016 (Hanan & Associates 2016), and 28 days in the period from June 28, 2014-June 27, 2015 (Hanan & Associates 2015). Observers recorded data only during construction, so it is possible there were more days throughout the year in which elephant seals hauled out on the beach. Children's Pool docent data indicates that Northern elephant seals used the beach as a haulout location on 38 days in 2014 and 36 days in 2015 (Seal Conservancy 2016).

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

Acoustic sources associated with the City's proposed activities are expected to include various types of construction and demolition equipment, such as jackhammers, concrete saws, cement pumps, and hand tools (Table 1). Sound sources may be pulsed or non-pulsed.

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., sonic booms, explosions, gunshots, 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. Pulsed 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.

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced by rocket launches and landings, vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, and vibratory pile driving. The duration of such sounds, as received at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant environment.

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 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 and all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 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). Root mean square 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.

Here, we first provide background information on marine mammal hearing before discussing the potential effects of acoustic sources on marine mammals.

To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, 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 directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. The functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges correspond to the range for the composite group, with the entire range not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of every species within that group):

• Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with best hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to less than 100 kHz;

• High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz, with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, with best hearing between 2-48 kHz.

The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemilä et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).

For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. Three marine mammal species (one otariid and two phocid pinnipeds) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2.

The effects of sounds on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including the species, size, behavior (feeding, nursing, resting, etc.), and depth (if underwater) of the animal; the intensity and duration of the sound; and the sound propagation properties of the environment. Impacts to marine species can 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 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).

The effects of sounds from the proposed activities are expected to result in behavioral disturbance of marine mammals. Due to the expected sound levels of the equipment proposed for use and the distance of the planned activity from marine mammal habitat, the effects of sounds from the proposed activities are not expected to result in temporary or permanent hearing impairment (TTS and PTS, respectively), non-auditory physical or physiological effects, or masking in marine mammals. Data from monitoring reports associated with IHAs issued previously for similar activities in the same location as the planned activities provides further support for the assertion that TTS, PTS, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, and masking are not likely to occur (Hanan & Associates 2014; 2015; 2016). Therefore, TTS, PTS, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, and masking are not discussed further in this section.

Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007).

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. 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 have shown pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud underwater 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) 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).

The onset of noise can 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): 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.

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 potentially be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. 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).

Marine mammals that occur in the project area could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with construction and demolition activities that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment, depending on an animal's distance from the sound. Airborne sound could potentially affect pinnipeds that are hauled out. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon their habitat and move further from the source. Hauled out pinnipeds may flush into the water, which can potentially result in pup abandonment. Site-specific monitoring data described below indicate that pup abandonment is not likely to occur at this site as a result of the specified activity.

The City has monitored pinniped responses to construction at Children's Pool beach for the past three years as a requirement of previously issued IHAs for construction of the lifeguard station on the bluffs above Children's Pool (NMFS 2013; 2014; 2015). The equipment associated with the planned construction and demolition activities at Coast Boulevard would be very similar to the equipment associated with the IHAs issued previously for the lifeguard station construction project, sound levels are expected to be substantially similar, and the project location and marine mammal species affected are expected to be the same. Thus, we rely on observational data on responses of pinnipeds to demolition and construction of the lifeguard station at Children's Pool beach in drawing conclusions about expected pinniped responses to sound associated with the planned project.

NMFS previously issued three consecutive IHAs to the City of San Diego for the incidental take of marine mammals associated with the demolition of the existing lifeguard station at Children's Pool beach and the construction of a new lifeguard station at the same location, from June 2013 through June 2016 (NMFS 2013; 2014; 2015). The first IHA was effective June 28, 2013 through June 27, 2014; the second IHA was valid June 28, 2014 through June 27, 2015; the third IHA was valid June 28, 2015 through June 27, 2016. All of the IHAs authorized take of Pacific harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant seals, in the form of Level B harassment, incidental to demolition and construction activities.

From 2013-2016, protected species observers collected data over a total of 3,376 hourly counts at seven sites around the project and Children's Pool beach. Observed reactions of pinnipeds at Children's Pool to demolition and construction of the lifeguard station ranged from no response to heads-up alerts, from startle responses to some movements on land, and some movements into the water (Hanan & Associates 2014; 2015; 2016). There were no documented occurrences of take by Level A harassment throughout the three years of monitoring (Hanan & Associates 2014; 2015; 2016). Data from the three years of monitoring also suggests there was no site abandonment on the part of harbor seals a result of the project (Hanan & Associates 2014; 2015; 2016). Based on the data from these three previously issued IHAs, we expect that any behavioral responses by pinnipeds to the planned project would be very similar to those that resulted from the previously authorized lifeguard station project: From no response to heads-up alerts, startle responses, some movements on land, and some movements into the water (flushing).

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

Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. 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).

All authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to sounds associated with the planned construction and demolition activities. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. The death of a marine mammal is also a type of incidental take. However, in the case of the planned project it is unlikely that injurious or lethal takes would occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation and monitoring measures, and no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. The current NMFS thresholds for behavioral harassment of pinnipeds from airborne noise are shown in Table 3.

NMFS currently uses a three-tiered scale to determine whether the response of a pinniped on land to acoustic or visual stimuli is considered an alert, a movement, or a flush. NMFS considers the behaviors that meet the definitions of both movements and flushes to qualify as behavioral harassment. Thus a pinniped on land is considered by NMFS to have been behaviorally harassed if it moves greater than two times its body length, or if the animal is already moving and changes direction and/or speed, or if the animal flushes from land into the water. Animals that become alert without such movements are not considered harassed. See Table 4 for a summary of the pinniped disturbance scale.

Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment and, when duration of the activity is considered, it can result in a take estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. In particular, for stationary activities such as the proposed project, it is more likely that some smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site is stronger than the deterrence presented by the harassing activity.

The take calculations presented here rely on the best information currently available for marine mammal populations in the Children's Pool area. Below we describe how the take was estimated for the planned project.

The take estimate for harbor seal was based on the following steps:

(1) Estimate the total area (m2) of harbor seal haulout habitat available at Children's Pool;

(2) Estimate the total area of available haulout habitat expected to be ensonified to the airborne Level B harassment threshold for harbor seals (90 dB re 20 µPa) based on total haulout area and the percentage of total haulout area expected to be ensonified to the Level B harassment threshold;

(3) Estimate the daily number of seals exposed to sounds above Level B harassment threshold by multiplying the total area of haulout habitat expected to be ensonified to the Level B threshold by the expected daily number of seals on Children's Pool;

(4) Estimate the total number of anticipated harbor seals taken over the duration of the project by multiplying the daily number of seals exposed to noise above the Level B harassment threshold by the number of total project days in which project-related sounds may exceed the Level B harassment threshold.

As described above, Children's Pool is designated as a shared-use beach. The beach and surrounding waters are used for swimming, surfing, kayaking, diving, tide pooling, and nature watching, thus the beach is shared between humans and pinnipeds. To discourage people from harassing pinnipeds hauled out on the beach, a guideline rope, oriented parallel to the water, bisects the beach into upper (western) and lower (eastern) beach areas; people are encouraged to stay on the western side of the guideline rope, allowing seals to use the eastern section of beach that provides access to the water. The City's estimate of available pinniped habitat was based on the total area of the beach between the guideline rope and the mean lower low water line. Thus, the area considered for this analysis to be available as haulout habitat is the total area east of the rope and west of the mean lower low water line, while the area west of the rope is assumed to be unavailable as pinniped habitat (See Figure 5 in the IHA application for the location of the guideline rope, and the area assumed to be available haulout habitat). The City estimated that there are 2,509 m2 east of the guideline rope; therefore it is assumed that there is a total of 2,509 m2 of available pinniped habitat on Children's Pool (Figure 5 in IHA application).

The City estimated the area of available harbor seal habitat at Children's Pool beach that would be ensonified to the Level B harassment threshold by estimating the distance to the Level B harassment threshold from sounds associated with the planned activities, then calculating the percentage of available haulout habitat at Children's Pool that would be ensonified to that threshold based on the total available habitat and the distance to the Level B harassment threshold.

To estimate the distance to the in-air Level B harassment threshold for harbor seals (90 dB rms) for the planned project, the City first used a spherical spreading loss model, assuming average atmospheric conditions. The spreading loss model predicted that the 90 dB isopleth would be reached at 10 m (33 ft). However, data from in situ recordings conducted during the lifeguard station project at Children's Pool indicated that peak sound levels of 90 to 103 dB were recorded at distances of 15 m to 20 m (49 to 66 ft) from the source when the loudest construction equipment (source levels ranging from 100 to 110 dB) was operating. The City estimated that the loudest potential sound sources associated with the planned project would be approximately 110 dB rms (Table 1), based on manufacturer specifications and previous recordings of similar equipment used during the lifeguard station project at Children's Pool (Hanan & Associates 2014; 2015; 2016). Therefore, the City estimated that for the sound sources expected to result in the largest isopleths (those with SLs estimated at up to 110 dB), the area expected to be ensonified to the in-air Level B harassment threshold for harbor seals (90 dB rms) would extend to approximately 20 m from the sound source. To be conservative, the City used this distance (20 m) based on the data from previous site-specific monitoring, rather than the results of the spherical spreading loss model, to estimate the predicted distance to the in-air Level B harassment threshold for harbor seals.

Based on the estimated distance to the in-air Level B harassment threshold for harbor seals (20 m from the sound source), the City estimated 647 m2 of total available harbor seal habitat at Children's Pool beach would be ensonified to the Level B harassment threshold, the City therefore estimated that approximately 25.8 percent (647/2,509) of available harbor seal haulout habitat at Children's Pool beach would be ensonified to the Level B harassment threshold (Figure 5 in IHA application). This information has been used to derive the take estimate only; the entire beach would be observed in order to document potential actual take.

The estimated daily take of harbor seals was based on the number of harbor seals expected to occur daily in the area ensonified to the Level B harassment threshold. In their IHA application, the City estimated that 200 harbor seals would be present on Children's Pool beach per day, based on literature that reported this number as the maximum number of seals recorded at Children's Pool (Linder 2011). However, NMFS believes it is more appropriate to use the average number of seals observed on Children's Pool beach, as opposed to the maximum number of seals, to estimate the likely number of takes of harbor seals as a result of the planned project. During 3,376 hourly counts associated with monitoring for IHAs issued for construction and demolition at the lifeguard station at Children's Pool in 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, there was an average of 54.5 harbor seals (including pups) recorded daily on Children's Pool beach (pers. comm., D. Hanan, Hanan & Associates, to J. Carduner, NMFS, April 04, 2017). We therefore estimated that 55 harbor seals would occur on Children's Pool per day, and used this number to estimate take of harbor seals as a result of the planned project. Based on an estimate of 55 total harbor seals on Children's Pool per day, and an estimated 25.8 percent of total haulout habitat ensonified to the Level B harassment threshold for harbor seals, we estimated that an average of 14.2 (rounded to 15) takes of harbor seals by Level B harassment would occur per day.

The City estimated that the total duration of the project would be 164 days. However, activities involving equipment that could result in sound source levels of 101-110 dB would occur on a maximum of 108 project days (pers. comm., D. Langsford, Tierra Data, to, J. Carduner, NMFS, April 03, 2017). Based on the distance of the project to Children's Pool and previous monitoring reports, we believe it is unlikely that project-related activities with expected source levels at or below 100 dB rms would result in sound exposure levels at or above 90 dB among any pinnipeds at Children's Pool. Planned project-related activities would occur on top of a natural cliff in an area of increasing elevation above the beach, therefore we do not believe visual stimuli from the project would result in behavioral harassment of any marine mammals. Therefore, we do not expect that activities with expected source levels of 100 dB and below would result in take of marine mammals. Thus, our take estimate is based on the number of days in which source levels associated with the planned project could be between 100 and 110 dB rms. Based on an estimate of 15 takes of harbor seals per day by Level B harassment, over a total of 108 days the project would be expected to result in a total of 1,620 takes of harbor seals by Level B harassment. We therefore propose to authorize a total of 1,620 incidental takes of harbor seals by Level B harassment only. The City requested authorization for the 8,528 takes of harbor seals, however, based on the rationale described above, we propose to authorize 1,620 incidental takes of 1,620 harbor seals.

As described above, California sea lions are occasional visitors to Children's Pool. The most reliable estimates of likely California sea lion occurrence in the project area come from monitoring reports associated with IHAs issued previously for demolition and construction of the lifeguard station at Children's Pool. In 2015-16 there were 71 observations of California sea lions on Children's Pool over 209 days of monitoring, for an average of one California sea lion observed on Children's Pool approximately every three days. Based on this ratio, we estimate that a total of 55 observations of California sea lions on Children's Pool during the entire duration of the project (164 days); however as described above we do not think take is likely to occur on days in which source levels are below 100 dB. We expect one take of California sea lion would occur for every 3 days of the project in which source levels are anticipated to be between 101-110 dB (108 total days). We therefore propose to authorize 36 incidental takes of California sea lions by Level B harassment only. This is considered a conservative estimate as the threshold for Level B harassment for California sea lions is different than that for harbor seals (Table 3). The City requested authorization for 100 takes of California sea lions, however we instead propose to authorize 36 incidental takes of California sea lions.

As described above, northern elephant seals are occasional visitors to Children's Pool. The most reliable estimates of likely northern elephant seal occurrence in the project area come from monitoring reports associated with IHAs issued previously for demolition and construction of the lifeguard station at Children's Pool. In 2015-16 there were 26 observations of northern elephant seals on Children's Pool over 209 days of monitoring, for an average of one northern elephant seal observed on Children's Pool approximately every eight days. Based on this ratio, we estimate a total of 20 northern elephant seals would be observed on Children's Pool during the entire duration of the project (164 days); however as described above we do not think take is likely to occur on days in which source levels are below 100 dB. We expect one northern elephant seal take would occur for every eight days of the project in which source levels are anticipated to be between 101-110 dB (108 total days). We therefore propose to authorize 14 incidental takes of northern elephant seals by Level B harassment only. This is considered a conservative estimate as the threshold for Level B harassment for northern elephant seals is different than that for harbor seals (Table 3). The City requested authorization for 50 takes of northern elephant seals, however we instead propose to authorize 14 incidental takes of northern elephant seals.

There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).

In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully balance two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat—which considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented; and the likelihood of effective implementation, and; (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

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

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

2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

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

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

The City has proposed several mitigation measures. These measures include the following:

• Moratorium during harbor seal pupping season: Demolition and construction would be prohibited during the Pacific harbor seal pupping season (December 15th to May 15th) and for an additional two weeks to accommodate lactation and weaning of late season pups. Thus construction would be prohibited from December 15th to May 29th. This measure is designed to avoid any potential adverse impacts to pups that may otherwise occur, such as abandonment by mothers as a result of harassment.

• Activities limited to daylight hours only: Construction and demolition would be limited to daylight hours only (7 a.m. to 7 p.m., or 30 minutes before sunset depending on time of year). This measure is designed to facilitate the ability of MMOs to effectively monitor potential instances of harassment and to accurately document behavioral responses of pinnipeds to project-related activities.

• Timing constraints for very loud equipment: To minimize potential impacts to marine mammals, construction and demolition activity involving use of very loud equipment (e.g., jackhammers) would be scheduled during the daily period of lowest pinniped haul-out occurrence, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., to the maximum extent practical. This measure is designed to minimize the number of pinnipeds exposed to sounds that may result in harassment. Construction and demolition may be extended from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (daylight hours only) to help ensure the project is completed in 2017, prior to the moratorium during the harbor seal pupping season starting December 15th, so as to reduce the overall duration of the project.

• Marine mammal observers (MMO): Trained MMOs would be used to detect and document project-related impacts to marine mammals, including any behavioral responses to the project. This measure is designed to facilitate the City's ability to increase the understanding of the effects of the action on marine mammal species and stocks. More information about this measure is contained in the “Proposed Monitoring” section below.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.

Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:

• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density).

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

• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.

• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.

• Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat).

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

The City has developed a Monitoring Plan specific to the project which establishes protocols for both acoustic and marine mammal monitoring. The objectives of the Monitoring Plan are to observe and document real-time sound levels in the project area, to document observed behavioral responses to project activities, and to record instances of marine mammal harassment. Monitoring would be conducted before, during, and after project activities to evaluate the impacts of the project on marine mammals. The Monitoring Plan can be found in Appendix C of the City's IHA application.

The Monitoring Plan encompasses both acoustic monitoring and marine mammal monitoring. Marine mammal monitoring would be conducted to assess the number and species, behavior, and responses of marine mammals to project-related activities as well as other sources of disturbance, as applicable. Acoustic monitoring would measure in-air sound pressure levels during ambient conditions and during project activities to measure sound levels associated with the project and to determine distances within which Level B acoustic harassment disturbance are expected to occur. More details are provided below.

Monitors would collect real-time acoustic data of construction activities to determine SPL values during demolition and construction activities, and to determine distances to zones within which SPLs are expected to meet or exceed airborne Level B harassment thresholds for harbor seals and other pinnipeds. Environmental data would also be collected to provide information on the weather, visibility, sea state, and tide conditions during monitoring surveys.

Sound level meters would be used to document SPLs at near-field and far-field locations during all surveys, and to determine the distances to Level B harassment thresholds. Far-field locations will include the western end of the beach, the middle of the guideline rope and the eastern edge of the beach. The total number and locations of the monitoring stations would be determined during each survey based on the location of construction activities and likelihood for sound levels to meet or exceed in-air SPL harassment thresholds in areas where marine mammals are observed at Children's Pool. Refer to Section 3 of the Monitoring Plan for further details on the acoustic monitoring plan.

Marine mammal monitoring would be conducted by qualified MMOs to document behavioral responses of marine mammals to the planned project. Monitors would document the behavior of marine mammals, the number and types of responses to disturbance, and the apparent cause of any reactions. Marine mammals displaying behavioral responses to disturbance would be assessed for the apparent cause of disturbance. All responses to stimuli related to the project would be documented; responses that rise to the level of behavioral harassment (Table 4) would be documented as takes.

Marine mammal observations may be made from vantage points on the beach or from overlook areas that provide an unobstructed view of the beach. Monitoring on the beach would be behind the guideline rope to minimize potential disturbance to hauled out marine mammals.

The following data would be collected during the marine mammal monitoring surveys:

• Dates and times of marine mammal observations.

• Location of observations.

• Construction activities occurring during each observation period. Any substantial change in construction activities (especially cessation) during observation periods should be noted.

• Human activity in the area; number of people on the beach, adjacent overlooks, and in the water.

• Counts by species of pinnipeds, and if possible sex and age class.

• Number and type of responses to disturbance, such as alert, flush, vocalization, or other with a description.

• Apparent cause of reaction.

The extent of marine mammal monitoring required would depend on recorded sound levels of the activities performed; sound levels would be verified through acoustic monitoring as described above. At the start of each new phase of demolition and construction (i.e., same type of activity and equipment), a full day of marine mammal monitoring would occur. This monitoring would include a Pre-Construction Activity Survey, hourly Construction Activity Surveys, and a Post-Construction Activity Survey. Pre-Construction Activity Surveys would include recordings of the times of observations, environmental conditions, and maximum ambient SPLs at the recording location at the top of the bluff adjacent to the project site, and at the three far-field locations, and would occur at least 30 minutes prior to the start of construction activities. Hourly Construction Activity Surveys would record times of observations, environmental conditions, and maximum SPLs at near-field and far-field locations. Post-Construction Activity Surveys would record times of observations, environmental conditions, and maximum ambient SPLs at all monitoring locations surveyed during the Construction Activity Surveys. Marine mammal monitoring data will be collected, as noted above. The number of days of subsequent monitoring required after the first day of monitoring for each new construction phase would depend on the results of acoustic monitoring, as follows:

(a) If Acoustic monitoring on the first day of a new phase of construction documents sound levels of 90 dB rms or greater at any far-field location, then daily monitoring would be required throughout that phase of construction.

(b) If Acoustic monitoring on the first day of a new phase of construction documents sound levels of 90 dB rms or greater at the near-field location, but not at any far-field location, then a minimum of two additional days of monitoring would be required to confirm far-field sound levels remain less than 90 dB rms for construction phase durations of less than 4 weeks. Monitoring would be conducted weekly to confirm far-field sound levels remain less than 90 dB rms for construction phase durations of greater than 4 weeks. If during the additional monitoring, sound levels of 90 dB or greater are recorded at any far-field location, then daily monitoring would be required until the end of that construction phase.

(c) If Acoustic monitoring on the first day of a new phase of construction documents sound levels of less than 90 dB rms at the near-field location(s), then one additional day of monitoring would be conducted to confirm near-field sound levels remain less than 90 dB rms. If a sound level of greater than 90 dB rms is measured at the near-field location on the second day of monitoring, then additional days of monitoring would be conducted consistent with the specification listed under item (b) above.

Marine mammal monitoring would be conducted by a qualified MMO with the following minimum qualifications:

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

• A minimum of a Bachelor's degree in biological science, wildlife management, mammalogy, or related field;

• Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience).

• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, and identification of marine mammal behavior;

• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area, as needed; and

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations.

As noted above, Guadalupe and northern fur seals would be considered extralimital to the project area; however, as fur seals have been occasionally observed in the area, the MMO would ensure that take of fur seals is avoided. In the event that a fur seal or another species of marine mammal for which take is not authorized in the IHA, if issued, are observed either on the rocks, beach, or in the water at Children's Pool prior to commencement of activities, the MMO would alert the stranding network, as the occurrence of these species would typically indicate a sick/injured animal, and activities would be postponed until coordination with the stranding network is complete (including any potential 24-hour or 48-hour wait/observation period) and/or the animal either leaves, or is collected by the stranding network.

Marine mammal monitoring protocols are described in greater detail in Section 4 of the City's Monitoring Plan.

A final monitoring report would include data collected during marine mammal monitoring and acoustic and environmental monitoring as described above. The monitoring report would include a narrative description of project related activities, counts of marine mammals by species, sex and age class, a summary of marine mammal species/count data, a summary of marine mammal responses to project-related disturbance, and responses to other types of disturbances. The monitoring report would also include a discussion of seasonal and daily variations in the abundance of marine mammals at Children's Pool, the relative percentage of marine mammals observed to react to construction activities and their observed reactions, and the number of marine mammals taken as a result of the project based on the criteria shown in Table 4.

A draft report would be submitted to NMFS within 60 calendar days of the completion of acoustic measurements and marine mammal monitoring. The results would be summarized in tabular/graphical forms and include descriptions of acoustic sound levels and marine mammal observations according to type of construction activity and equipment. A final report would be prepared and submitted to NMFS within 30 days following receipt of comments on the draft report from NMFS. Proposed reporting measures are described in greater detail in Section 6 of the City's Monitoring Plan.

If issued, this would be the first IHA issued for the planned activity. Monitoring reports from IHAs issued to the City in 2013, 2014, and 2015 for the lifeguard station construction project at Children's Pool reported that pinniped responses to that project ranged from no response to heads-up alerts, from startle responses to some movements on land, and some movements into the water (Hanan & Associates 2014; 2015; 2016). There were no documented occurrences of Level A takes throughout the three years of monitoring (Hanan & Associates 2014; 2015; 2016). Data from the three years of monitoring indicates no site abandonment by harbor seals a result of the project (Hanan & Associates 2014; 2015; 2016). Monitoring reports from previous IHAs issued to the City for lifeguard tower construction at Children's Pool can be found on our Web site at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. The monitoring report from the previous IHA issued to the City for a sand quality study at Children's Pool can be found on our Web site at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm.

NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects).

An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).

If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007).

Although the City's planned activities may disturb pinnipeds hauled out at Children's Pool, any project-related impacts are expected to occur to a small, localized group of marine mammals, in relation to the overall stocks of marine mammals considered here. Pinnipeds would likely become alert or, at most, flush into the water in response to sounds from the planned project. Disturbance is not expected to occur during particularly sensitive times for any marine mammal species, as mitigation measures have been specifically designed to avoid project-related activity during harbor seal pupping season to eliminate the possibility for pup injury or mother-pup separation. No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated, nor is the proposed action likely to result in long-term impacts such as permanent abandonment of the haulout (Hanan & Associates 2016).

Children's Pool is not known as an important feeding area for harbor seals, but does serve as a harbor seal rookery. Therefore, if displacement of seals or adverse effects to pups were an expected outcome of the planned activity, impacts to the stock could potentially result. However, site abandonment is not expected to occur as a result of the planned project. We base this expectation on results of previous monitoring reports from the three consecutive IHAs issued to the City for construction and demolition of the lifeguard station at Children's Pool. Over three-plus years of consecutive monitoring (2013-2016) there was no site abandonment by harbor seals a result of the project (Hanan & Associates 2014; 2015; 2016). Adverse effects to pups are not expected to occur. The moratorium on project-related activity during the harbor seal pupping season (December 15-May 15) is expected to minimize any potential adverse effects to pups such as mother-pup separation. Takes of harbor seal as a result of the project are expected to be low relative to stock size (approximately five percent). Additionally, as there are an estimated 600 harbor seals using Children's Pool beach during a year (Linder 2011), proposed authorized takes of harbor seals (Table 5) are expected to be repeated incidences of take to a smaller number of individuals, and not individuals taken, as described above. These takes are not expected to interfere with breeding, sheltering or feeding. For the reasons stated above, we do not expect the planned project to affect annual rates of recruitment or survival for harbor seals.

Children's Pool does not represent an important feeding or breeding area for either northern elephant seals or California sea lion, and neither species uses the project location as a pupping site. Takes of both species are expected to be very low relative to the stock sizes (less than one percent of the stock for each species) and no take by Level A harassment is anticipated to occur as a result of the project for either northern elephant seals or California sea lions. Takes that occur are expected to be in the form of behavioral harassment, specifically changes in direction or possibly flushing to the water. These takes are not expected to interfere with breeding, sheltering or feeding. For the reasons stated above, we do not expect the planned project to affect annual rates of recruitment or survival for northern elephant seals or California sea lions.

In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:

• No mortality is anticipated or authorized.

• No injury is expected. Over the course of 3,376 hourly counts associated with monitoring for IHAs issued to the City for construction and demolition of the lifeguard station at Children's Pool in 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, no takes by Level A harassment were documented. As the planned project would entail equipment with similar expected sound levels to those that occurred during the lifeguard station project at Children's Pool, but would occur further from the haulout location than the lifeguard station project, we do not expect take by Level A harassment to occur as a result of the planned project.

• Behavioral disturbance—Takes are expected to be in the form of behavioral disturbance only. Based on the sound levels anticipated and based on the monitoring reports from previous IHAs issued for similar activities at the same location, behavioral responses are expected to range from no response to alerts, to movements or changes in direction, to possible movements into the water (flushes). Planned mitigation described above is expected to limit the number and/or severity of behavioral responses, and those that occur are not expected to be severe.

• Important Areas—As described above, there are no important feeding, breeding or pupping areas that would be affected by the planned project for northern elephant seals and California sea lions. For harbor seal, Children's Pool represents a pupping location. However, as described above, mitigation measures including the moratorium during pupping season (December 15 to May 15) are expected to avoid any potential impacts to pups, such as mother-pup separation. Data from the three years of monitoring suggests that despite documented instances of harassment resulting from the lifeguard station project, there was no site abandonment a result of the project (Hanan & Associates 2014; 2015; 2016). Therefore, the planned project is not expected to negatively affect pups of any species, and is not expected to result in any impacts to annual rates of recruitment or survival.

• Species/Stock scale—As described above, the planned project would impact only a very small percentage of the stocks (approximately five percent for harbor seal, less than one percent for northern elephant seal and California sea lion) and would only impact all marine mammal stocks over a very small portion of their ranges.

• Species/stock status—No marine mammal species for which take authorization is proposed are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and no mammal stocks for which take authorization is proposed are determined to be strategic or depleted under the MMPA.

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

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

The numbers of marine mammals authorized to be taken for harbor seal, California sea lion, and northern elephant seal, would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (approximately five percent for harbor seal and less than one percent for northern elephant seal and California sea lion) even if each estimated take occurred to a new individual. However we believe it is extremely unlikely that each estimated take would occur to a new individual, and more likely that multiple takes would accrue to the same individuals.

As described above, depending on the amount of information available to characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment, and this can result in a take estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. In particular, for stationary activities, such as the proposed project, it is more likely that some smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual. This is especially true for those individuals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site is stronger than the deterrence presented by the harassing activity, as is the case with harbor seals that use Children's Pool as a haulout.

For the reasons described above, we expect that there will almost certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day at the project site, and the proposed total numbers of authorized takes are expected to occur only within a small portion of the overall regional stocks. Thus while we propose to authorize the instances of incidental take shown in Table 6, we believe that the number of individual marine mammals that would be incidentally taken by the proposed project would be substantially lower than these numbers.

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

There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally with our ESA Interagency Cooperation Division whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

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

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the City of San Diego for conducting demolition and construction at Coast Boulevard, La Jolla, California, from June 1, 2017 through December 14, 2017, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).

1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from June 1, 2017 through December 14, 2017. This IHA is valid only for demolition and construction activities associated with the public parking lot, sidewalk, and landscaping improvement project at Coast Boulevard in La Jolla, California.

2. General Conditions

(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the City, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.

(b) The species authorized for taking are the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris).

(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the species listed in condition 2(b).

(d) The take by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death, or the taking of any other species of marine mammal not listed in condition 2(b), is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.

(e) The City shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and acoustical monitoring team prior to the start of all demolition and construction activities, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.

3. Mitigation Measures

The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures.

(a) Demolition and construction shall be prohibited during the Pacific harbor seal pupping season (December 15th to May 15th) and for an additional two weeks to accommodate lactation and weaning of late season pups.

(b) Demolition and construction shall be limited to daylight hours only (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., or 30 minutes before sunset depending on time of year).

(c) Construction and demolition activity involving use of very loud equipment (e.g., jackhammers) shall be scheduled between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., to the maximum extent practical, but may be extended from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (daylight hours only).

(d) Monitoring shall be conducted by a trained marine mammal observer (MMO).

(i) The MMO shall have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring and shall be trained on species identification, how to observe, and how to fill out the data sheets prior to any construction or demolition activities.

(ii) Monitoring shall take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of demolition or construction activity through 30 minutes post-completion of such activity.

(iii) The MMO shall have the following minimum qualifications:

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

2. A minimum of a Bachelor's degree in biological science, wildlife management, mammalogy, or related field;

3. Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);

4. Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, and identification of marine mammal behavior;

5. Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

6. Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations; and

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

4. Monitoring

The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following monitoring measures:

(a) The City shall collect sighting data and shall record observed behavioral responses to project activities for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity;

(b) All visual marine mammal information shall be recorded as described in the Monitoring Plan (Appendix C, Section 4 of the IHA Application) and shall include the following:

(i) Dates and times of marine mammal observations;

(ii) Location of observations (description);

(iii) Construction activities occurring during each observation period including any substantial change in construction activities;

(iv) Human activity in the area;

(v) Counts by species of pinnipeds, and if possible sex and age class;

(vi) Number and type of marine mammal responses to disturbance; and

(vii) Apparent causes of marine mammal responses (e.g., construction project, aircraft, human activity, other pinniped, other animal, swimmer/diver, watercraft, or other with a description).

(c) In the event that a fur seal, is observed on the rocks, beach, or in the water prior to commencement of activities, the MMO shall alert the stranding network and all activities shall be postponed until coordination with the stranding network is complete (including any potential 24-hour or 48-hour wait/observation period) and/or the animal either leaves, or is collected by the stranding network.

(d) Acoustic recordings shall include the following:

(i) One location (at minimum) will be monitored close to the construction site (near field) and adjacent to the edge of the bluff overlooking Children's Pool. This will be a mobile station that will move based on the actual location of construction activities;

(ii) If the loudest construction activities are more than 15 m (49 ft) from the edge of the bluff, acoustic data also will be recorded at an additional near-field location closer to the construction/demolition activities;

(iii) Three fixed monitoring stations will be established parallel to the guideline rope (far-field);

(iv) If SPLs of 90 dB rms or greater are measured at any far-field monitoring station, additional monitoring will be conducted to determine the far-field extent of the 90 dB isopleth, and 100 dB isopleth, as applicable; and

(v) Acoustic monitor shall record time of observations, environmental conditions, and SPLs at applicable monitoring stations 30 minutes prior to the start of demolition/construction, every hour during demolition/construction, and 30 minutes after cessation of demolition/construction activities.

(e) At the start of each new phase of construction, a full day of acoustic monitoring shall occur. The number of days of monitoring required after the first full day of monitoring for each new construction phase shall depend on results of acoustic monitoring, as follows:

(i) If acoustic monitoring on the first day of a new phase of construction documents sound levels of 90 dB rms or greater at any far-field location, daily monitoring shall be required throughout that phase of construction;

(ii) If acoustic monitoring on the first day of a new phase of construction documents sound levels of 90 dB rms or greater at the near-field location, but not at any far-field location, then a minimum of two additional days of monitoring shall be required to confirm far-field sound levels remain less than 90 dB rms for construction phase durations of less than 4 weeks. Acoustic monitoring shall be conducted weekly to confirm far-field sound levels remain less than 90 dB rms for construction phase durations of greater than 4 weeks. If during the additional monitoring, sound levels of 90 dB or greater are recorded at any far-field location, then daily monitoring shall be required until the end of that construction phase; and

(iii) If Acoustic monitoring on the first day of a new phase of construction documents sound levels of less than 90 dB rms at the near-field location(s), then one additional day of monitoring shall be conducted to confirm near-field sound levels remain less than 90 dB rms. If a sound level of greater than 90 dB rms is measured at the near-field location on the second day of monitoring, additional days of monitoring shall be conducted consistent with the specification listed under item 4(d)(ii).

5. Reporting

The holder of this Authorization is required to:

(a) Submit a draft report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within 90 calendar days of the completion of marine mammal and acoustic monitoring or sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes first;

(b) Submit a final report within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational elements described in the Monitoring Plan at minimum, and shall also include:

(i) Results of the marine mammal monitoring plan including the elements described in 4(b); and

(ii) Results of acoustic monitoring as described in the Monitoring Plan.

(c) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:

(i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as injury or mortality, the City will immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:

1. Time and date of the incident;

2. Description of the incident;

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

4. Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

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

6. Fate of the animal(s); and

7. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).

Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with the City to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The City may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.

(ii) In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the MMO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), the City will immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.

The report must include the same information identified in 5(c)(i) of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with the City to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.

(iii) In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the MMO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), the City will report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. The City will provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.

This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.

We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed demolition and construction at Coast Boulevard, La Jolla, California. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the May 16, 2017 meeting, as well as any other materials presented in the meeting, may be obtained at the meeting.

Purpose of the Meeting: The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Neurological/Behavioral Health Subcommittee (“the Subcommittee”) of the Defense Health Board (DHB). The DHB provides independent advice and recommendations to maximize the safety and quality of, as well as access to, health care for DoD health care beneficiaries. The Subcommittee provides recommendations and advice to the DHB on matters pertaining to psychological/mental health issues and neurological symptoms or conditions. The Subcommittee is examining opportunities to improve the provision of behavioral health care and related services for children of members of the Armed Forces to better promote the health of this beneficiary population. The purpose of the meeting is for the Subcommittee members to receive public comments concerning pediatric behavioral health care in the Military Health System during an open forum, focusing on the following:

• Evaluate the quality of and access to behavioral health care under the TRICARE program for children, including intensive outpatient and partial hospitalization services.

• Measure the impact of permanent changes of station and other service-related relocations on the continuity of health care services received by children who have special medical or behavioral health needs.

• Identify the extent to which children receive developmentally appropriate and age appropriate health care services in both the direct care and purchased care components.

• Evaluate whether children have ready access to specialty pediatric care. The DoD has invited members of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council and the DHB Health Care Delivery Subcommittee to attend the meeting in their capacity as members of the public due to their ongoing work regarding pediatric health care for DoD beneficiaries.

Agenda: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the Subcommittee meeting is open to the public from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. on May 16, 2017. The Subcommittee will receive public comments on pediatric-related health services issues. The Designated Federal Officer (DFO), in consultation with the Subcommittee Chair, will allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion, restricting speaking time to 2-3 minutes per person. Members of the public must sign up to speak (see guidance in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, “Public Comments”).

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must register no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9, 2017 using the electronic registration available at the following link: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/3442415/May-16-2017-Public-Attendee-Registration or by contacting Ms. Kendal Brown at (703) 681-6670 or [email protected].

Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Kendal Brown at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Written Statements: Any member of the public wishing to provide comments to the Subcommittee may do so in accordance with section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and the procedures described in this notice. Written statements may be submitted to the DHB Alternate DFO, Ms. Camille Gaviola, at [email protected] and should be no longer than two type-written pages and include the issue, a short discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included, to establish the appropriate historical context and to provide any necessary background information. If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the DFO may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the Subcommittee Chair and ensure they are provided to members of the Subcommittee before the meeting that is subject to this notice.

Public Comments: Members of the public must sign up to speak by contacting Ms. Kendal Brown at (703) 681-6670 or [email protected] or by signing up at the reception table at the meeting. Public comments will be received by the Subcommittee in order of sign-up and within the time limits of the meeting. Those who provide public comment are strongly encouraged to also provide written statements to support their comments (see guidance in “Written Statements” section).

The Board's charter is being renewed under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 175 and 10301 and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a). The Board's charter and contact information for the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be found at http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

The Board shall provide to the Secretary of Defense, for transmittal to the President and the Congress, an annual report on any reserve component matters that the Board considers appropriate to include. The Board shall serve as an independent adviser to the Secretary of Defense to provide advice and recommendations on strategies, policies, and practices designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the reserve components. The Board may act on those matters referred to it by the Chair and on any matter raised by a member of the Board or the Secretary of Defense.

Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 10301(c), the Board shall be composed of 20 members. All members of the Board are appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. All members are entitled to reimbursement for official Board-related travel and per diem.

The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Board. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

The Corps published an NOI in the Federal Register on May 7, 2010 (75 FR 25218) to prepare a Draft EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act for the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill Project. A public scoping meeting was held on June 3, 2010 to solicit public input on the scope of analysis; significant issues to be evaluated in the Draft EIS; direct, indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed action; and proposed alternatives. The Corps published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS for the Gregory Canyon Landfill Project on December 14, 2012 (77 FR 74470) and held a public hearing on January 31, 2013. The Draft EIS was circulated for public comments for 125 days, ending on April 15, 2013. However, the Corps withdrew the DA permit application on April 28, 2014 pursuant to 33 CFR 325.2(d)(5), due to a lack of essential information needed from the applicant to continue with the permit application evaluation process. The applicant subsequently provided the essential information and a new DA permit application, and the Corps issued a Public Notice for the updated application on September 24, 2015 with a 30-day comment period. Since that time, the project proponent has withdrawn its Department of the Army permit application and is no longer actively pursuing the proposed project. Therefore, the Corps is withdrawing the Draft EIS for the Gregory Canyon Landfill Project.

Invitation To Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this proposed waiver and extension of the project period.

During and after the project period, you may inspect all public comments about this proposed waiver and extension in Room 11076 or Room 11075, PCP, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week, except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact one of the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The NACTEP, as authorized by section 116 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (the Act), provides grants to improve career and technical education programs that are consistent with the purposes of the Act and that benefit Native Americans and Alaska Natives. The Act also provides that NACTEP programs should build on the efforts of States and localities to develop challenging academic and technical standards and to assist students in meeting such standards, including preparation for high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand occupations in emerging or established professions. (20 U.S.C. 2301(1)).

In addition, programs are required to provide technical assistance that promotes leadership, initial preparation, and professional development and improves the quality of career and technical education teachers, faculty, administrators, and counselors. (20 U.S.C. 2301(5)).

Additionally, NACTEP programs generally support partnerships among secondary schools, postsecondary institutions, baccalaureate degree-granting institutions, area career and technical education schools, local workforce investment boards, business and industry, and intermediaries, as well as provide, in conjunction with other education and training programs, individuals with opportunities throughout their lives to develop the knowledge and skills needed to keep the United States competitive. (20 U.S.C. 2301(6) and (7)).

On February 26, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 13030) a notice inviting applications under NACTEP (2013 NIA), to operate career and technical education programs, as authorized by section 116(a) through (g) of the Act. (20 U.S.C. 2326(a)-(g)).

In FY 2013, the Department funded two-year awards to NACTEP projects that were scheduled to end in FY 2015. On February 10, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 7439), a proposed waiver and extension of the project period for the NACTEP grants. In that notice, we stated that we did not believe it would be in the public interest to hold a new NACTEP competition in FY 2015, due to the potential for changes in the authorizing legislation for NACTEP beyond 2015, resulting in projects that might then operate for just one year. Following that notice and consideration of the comments received in response to it, on July 6, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 38440), a notice of final waiver and extension of the project period for the NACTEP, waiving the requirements of 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c)(2) that generally prohibit project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds. Therefore, the NACTEP grantees were permitted to request an extension of the project period for up to an additional 24 months.

In this notice, we are proposing to waive the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c)(2) in order to allow the Department to consider current grantee requests to extend the project period for an additional 12 months. Given that these funds expire by September 30, 2017, there would be limited time to conduct a NACTEP competition and provide the new administration sufficient time to determine its career and technical education priorities. Therefore, the Department believes it is in the best interest of the public to extend the existing grants for an additional 12 months.

If this proposed waiver becomes final through a notice of final waiver and extension of the project period published in the Federal Register: (1) The requirements applicable to continuation awards for current NACTEP grantees set forth in the 2013 NIA and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253 would apply to any continuation awards sought by current NACTEP grantees; (2) we will make decisions regarding the continuation awards based on grantee program narratives, budgets and budget narratives, and program performance reports and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253; and (3) we will not announce a new competition or make new awards in FY 2017.

The proposed waiver and project period extension would not exempt the current NACTEP grantees from the appropriation account closing provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), nor would they extend the availability of funds previously awarded to current NACTEP grantees. As a result of 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), appropriations available for a limited period may be used for payment of valid obligations for only five years after the expiration of their period of availability for Federal obligation. After that time, the unexpended balance of those funds is canceled and returned to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and is unavailable for restoration for any purpose (31 U.S.C. 1552(b)).

The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension and the activities required to support additional months of funding would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The small entities that would be affected by this proposed waiver and extension are the 30 currently funded NACTEP grantees and any other potential applicants. The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension would not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the extension of an existing project imposes minimal compliance costs, and the activities required to support the additional years of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.

This notice of proposed waiver and extension contains information collection requirements approved by OMB under control number 1830-0542; this proposed waiver and extension does not cause any changes to the approved OMB information collection.

The NACTEP is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

OMB Control No.: 3060-xxxx.

Title: Section 97.303(g)(2), Notification Requirement.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,000 respondents and 1,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes (0.167 hours).

Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304, 307 and 332(b).

Total Annual Burden: 167 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

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

On March 29, 2017 the Federal Communications Commission released a Report and Order, Amendment of Parts 2, 15, 80, 90, 97, and 101 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Implementation of the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2012)(WRC-12), Other Allocation Issues, and Related Rule Updates, ET Docket No. 15-99, FCC 17-33, which inter alia, amends the Commission's rules for the Amateur Radio Service to provide for frequency sharing requirements in the 135.7-137.8 kHz (2200 meter) and 472-479 kHz (630 meter) bands. These rules will ensure the compatibility of amateur radio operations and Power Line Carrier (PLC) systems that operate in these bands, and will promote the shared use of these bands. As background, in the larger 9-490 kHz band, electric utilities operate PLC systems on power transmission lines for communications important to the reliability and security of electric service to the public. The Commission found that the identification of transmission lines are not always readily identifiable and that amateur operators may not be able to determine whether PLC systems operate in the relevant bands on the subject transmission lines. For these reasons, the Commission adopted a notification process to ensure that amateur stations seeking to operate in these bands are located outside of a minimum separation distance.

Specifically, the information collection requirements contained in Section 97.303(g)(2) requires prior to commencement of operations in these bands, amateur operators must notify the Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) of their intent by submitting their call signs, intended band or bands of operation, and the coordinates of their antenna's fixed location. Amateur stations will be permitted to commence operations after a 30-day period unless UTC notifies the applicant that its requested location is located within one kilometer of PLC systems operating in the same or overlapping frequencies.

ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. The Children's Health Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. Section 300d-53(h), requires the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) System in each State to annually prepare and submit to the Secretary a report that includes documentation of the progress they have made in serving individuals with traumatic brain injury. AIDD will review the program performance reports (PPRs) for compliance and for program outcomes. AIDD also will aggregate the information in the PPRs into a national profile of programmatic activities and accomplishments. Information from these reports is shared with the public through postings to the ACL.gov Web site. The information will also allow AIDD to track accomplishments against performance goals and determine areas where technical assistance is needed to comply with Federal requirements or improve performance. The annual PPRs are reviewed by federal staff for compliance and performance in established outcome areas. Information in the PPRs is analyzed to create a national profile of programmatic compliance, outcomes, and goals and priorities for P&A Systems for tracking accomplishments, goals and to determine areas of technical assistance the P&As need related to compliance with Federal requirements and program performance. Information collected in the unified report will inform AIDD of trends in P&A advocacy, collaboration with other federally-funded entities, and identify best practices for efficient use of federal funds.

A notice was published in the Federal Register in Vol. 82, No. 10, pages 4888-4889, on January 17, 2017, announcing that ACL was requesting approval of a new data collection. ACL has not received any comments expressing concern related to the new PPR reporting forms for the P&A program. However, additional technical changes were made to the PATBI PPR template to clarify certain information collection items in the form. In Part I, section C(1)—Public Relations and Outreach, ACL added the language “racial and ethnic” before the word “minority” to the section C(1) question, “Describe the agency's outreach efforts to previously unserved or underserved individuals, including minority communities” to make sure the question is clear. In Part II, section B, item 14.5 was updated to “TANF” from “Welfare Reform,” and item 16 was updated to “Other Government Benefits/Services” from “Government Benefits/Services.” Last, Part II, section H, item 2 was updated to “American Indian/Alaska Native” from “American Indian/Alaskan Native.”

The PPR will allow federal staff to review the programs performance and achievement and assist where technical assistance is needed. Additionally, information contained in the PPR provides performance measures based on the annual reports. The performance data is reported to Congress under the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act (GPRAMA).

The proposed Protection and or Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) Program Performance Report (PPR) form can be found on the AIDD Web site at: https://acl.gov/Programs/AIDD/Program_Resource_Search/Results_PA.aspx.

ACL estimates the burden hours for this collection of information as follows:

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. ACL is requesting an extension of the currently approved data collection with modifications. The Funding Opportunity Announcement and Application Instructions Template are for use with all ACL competitions for discretionary grant programs. The template provides the requirements and instructions for the submission of an application for discretionary grants funding opportunities.

ACL is publishing this Federal Register Notice for the public to review and comment on the ACL Standard Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) (0985-0018) form. ACL seeks to make a small number of minor edits to the current Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) template form. The edits are intended to clarify and simplify the form used to solicit applicants who wish to perform activities related to the various programs offered by ACL, either through a grant or cooperative agreement. The edits consist of correcting grammatical errors, removing duplicative language, and allowing for the option to add program specific instructions to the project summary and abstract.

A 60-day Federal Register Notice was published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2017 (Vol. 82, Number 20; pp. 8940-8941). In response to the notice, the Department received two comments, one with 57 signatories. The commenters were concerned that the template did not reference an eight percent cap on the indirect cost rate associated with training programs. Instead, the notice included language from the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (commonly called “Uniform Guidance”), which were implemented in fiscal year 2015 (https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/learn-grants/grant-policies/omb-uniform-guidance-2014.html) . This language requires agencies to accept the indirect cost rate negotiated with their agency, and the requirement applies to all grant making agencies in the Federal Government. However, the HHS Grants Policy Administration Manual (GPAM) and Grants Policy Statement (GPS) provide that the indirect cost rate for training grants is capped at eight percent. ACL has reviewed all pertinent information and has determined that no change is necessary to the FOA template. This notice is for a generic template that is used by all ACL grant applicants. Requirements associated with particular programs are included in the specific FOAs for those programs. The UCEDD programs were designated as training programs in the past as part of the specific FOA for these programs. The proposed template may be found on the ACL Web site at https://acl.gov/Funding_Opportunities/Announcements/docs/ACL_PA_Template_FINAL.docx.

Estimated Number of Responses: 749 annually. Total Estimated Burden Hours: 79,984.

Inspection of Public Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be used in the development of specific survey redesign options. Comments, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information included in comments submitted in response to this notice, will be summarized and/or included in NSDUH redesign reports.

NSDUH is a national survey of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population aged 12 or older. The NSDUH data collection is essential for meeting a critical objective of SAMHSA's mission—to maintain current data on the prevalence of substance use and mental health problems in the United States. NSDUH is authorized by Section 505 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa-4—Data Collection) which authorizes annual data collection for monitoring the prevalence of illicit substance use and mental health problems, as well as the misuse of licit substances in the U.S. population. NSDUH was conducted on a periodic basis from 1971 to 1988 and has been conducted annually since 1990.

Information collected through NSDUH has multiple applications, including (1) advancing the study of the epidemiology of substance use and mental health; (2) monitoring substance use and mental health trends and patterns; (3) identifying licit and illicit substances being used and misused; (4) studying the use of health care resources for treatment of substance use disorders and mental health problems; (5) assisting Federal, State and local agencies in the allocation of resources; and (6) supporting the proper design and implementation of substance misuse prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation programs. In order to continue meeting data users' needs, SAMHSA's Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ) must periodically update NSDUH content and methodology to reflect the changing field of substance use and mental health along with data collection best practices. Any redesign will help to ensure NSDUH continues to produce accurate and current data with efficiency.

It is important for NSDUH to remain policy relevant and to be a source of reliable information. The impetus for any future NSDUH redesign is to ensure that NSDUH continues to capture substance use, substance use disorder, and mental health concepts accurately, precisely, and in ways that reflect the state of the field as it advances (e.g., updating, adding and removing content to reflect evolving data needs; adapting new approaches for reducing nonresponse). In addition, the redesigned NSDUH should track trends from its inception onward and have flexibility to address changing data needs, to adjust to shifting budgets and to allow occasional adjustments to the sample and questionnaire without putting trend data at risk.

A redesign for NSDUH will require considerable effort and will break trends with earlier NSDUH data where new estimates could not be compared to those from previous years. It is essential to take sufficient time to develop and validate any redesigned measures to avoid the need for further near-term changes with the potential for additional, unanticipated breaks in data trends. The last partial redesign was implemented in 2015. SAMHSA is now exploring the possibility of another redesign sometime in the future.

This notice is a general solicitation of comments from the public. Proposed changes should meet the following criteria:

• Because NSDUH is a general population survey and includes individuals 12 years and older, questions must be understandable to a person with a 6th grade reading level.

• Each question must have analytic utility. That is, questions must be useful either to estimate prevalence or as a key component in statistical analyses, such as studies of the potential impact of policies.

• Questions must apply to enough respondents that precise estimation is possible (i.e., behaviors, experiences and attitudes must be prevalent enough to ensure reliable estimates).

• Questions should generate data for aggregated analyses, not to assess the efficacy of a particular treatment program.

• Questions should be useful in tracking trends or changes in treatment behavior even when policies change.

• When adding new questions, current questions must be identified for deletion, so there is no increase in respondent burden; survey administration time should average no more than 1 hour.

• Any new questions should be administrable according to NSDUH survey procedures and as part of the redesigned NSDUH questionnaire. Under current practices, this means new questions would be administered using audio computer-assisted self-interviewing [ACASI]), allow no parent proxy reports for youth respondents, and entail no special sampling requirements or changes to household screening questions.

• Any changes would be made at the beginning of any future redesign, and will not be changed again until the next redesign in order to be able to maintain trend data.

Issues of interest for public comment include but are not limited to the following:

All comments should be received by June 26, 2017.

This proposed information collection previously published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2017 at 82 FR 9388 with a 60 day public comment period. FEMA received one request for a copy of the proposed information collection by the public. The Agency responded to this comment and provided the most up-to-date copy of the proposed information collection to the requester. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Title: Approval and Coordination of Requirements To Use the NETC for Extracurricular and Training Activities.

Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

OMB Number: 1660-0029.

Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 119-17-1, Request for Housing Accommodations; FEMA Form 119-17-2, Request for Use of NETC Facilities.

Abstract: FEMA established the National Emergency Training Center (NETC), located in Emmitsburg, Maryland to offer training for the purpose of emergency preparedness. The NETC site has facilities and housing available for those participating in emergency preparedness. When training space and/or housing is required for those attending the training, a request for use of these areas must be made in advance and this collection provides the mechanism for such requests to be made.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government; individuals or households; and business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 60.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 120 hours.

Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $407.04. The annual costs to respondents' operations and maintenance costs for technical services is $956.40. There are no annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $1,014.60.

This information collection previously published in the Federal Register on February 7, 2017 at 82 FR 9584 with a 60 day public comment period. No comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Title: Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Documentation.

Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

OMB Number: 1660-0118.

Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 091-0, After Action Report/Improvement Plan (AAR/IP); FEMA Form 008-0-26, Multi-Year Training Exercise Plan (TEP); FEMA Form 008-0-27, National Exercise Program (NEP) Nomination Form.

Abstract: The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Documentation collection provides reporting on the results of preparedness exercises and provides assessments of the respondents' capabilities so that strengths and areas for improvement are identified, corrected, and shared as appropriate prior to a real incident. This information is also required to be submitted as part of certain FEMA grant programs.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 268.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 23,208 hours.

Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $1,494,947.96. There are no annual costs to respondents operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $60,896.80.

We have issued the following permits to conduct activities with endangered and threatened species in response to recovery permit applications that we received under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). These permits were issued between July 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016. Each permit was issued only after we determined that it was applied for in good faith, that granting the permit would not be to the disadvantage of the listed species, that the proposed activities were for scientific research or would benefit the recovery or the enhancement of survival of the species, and that the terms and conditions of the permits were consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in the Act.

The following permits were applied for and issued in Region 1. For more information about any of the following permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 503-231-6131.

The following permits were applied for and issued in Region 2. For more information about any of the following permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 505-248-6665.

The following permits were applied for and issued in Region 3. For more information about any of the following permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 612-713-5343.

The following permits were applied for and issued in Region 4. For more information about any of the following permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 404-679-7140.

The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless authorized by a Federal permit. The Act and our implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for the issuance of such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.

A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number for the application when submitting comments.

Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review by any party who submits a written request to the Program Manager for Restoration and Endangered Species Classification at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Requests must be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Release of documents is subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species.

All comments and materials we receive in response to these requests will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in ADDRESSES.

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

We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Background

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless the activities are specifically authorized by a Federal permit. The ESA and our implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for the issuance of such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.

A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

The proposed activities in the requested permits qualify as categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act, as provided by Department of the Interior implementing regulations in part 46 of title 43 of the CFR (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and 46.215).

We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive in response to this notice are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed above in ADDRESSES.

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

We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

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

(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: Inventories, Licensed Explosives Importers, Manufacturers, Dealers, and Permittees.

(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

Form number: None.

Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

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

Primary: Business or other for-profit.

Other: None.

Abstract: The records show the explosive material inventories of those persons engaged in various activities within the explosive industry and are used by the government as initial figures from which an audit trail can be developed during the course of a compliance inspection or criminal investigation.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 9,916 respondents will respond twice to provide inventory for this collection, and it will take each respondent approximately 1 hour to complete each inventory.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 19,832 hours, which is equal to (9,916 * 2 (# of responses) * 1 (hour to provide each inventory).

(7) An explanation of the change in estimates: The adjustments associated with this collection are a decrease in the number of respondents by 550, and a decrease in the total burden hours by 1,100 from the previous collection renewal.

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

The FBI CJIS APB is responsible for reviewing policy issues and appropriate technical and operational issues related to the programs administered by the FBI's CJIS Division, and thereafter, making appropriate recommendations to the FBI Director. The programs administered by the CJIS Division are the Next Generation Identification, Interstate Identification Index, Law Enforcement Enterprise Portal, National Crime Information Center, National Instant Criminal Background Check System, National Incident-Based Reporting System, National Data Exchange, and Uniform Crime Reporting.

This meeting is open to the public. All attendees will be required to check-in at the meeting registration desk. Registrations will be accepted on a space available basis. Interested persons whose registrations have been accepted may be permitted to participate in the discussions at the discretion of the meeting chairman and with approval of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Any member of the public may file a written statement with the Board. Written comments shall be focused on the APB's current issues under discussion and may not be repetitive of previously submitted written statements. Written comments should be provided to Mr. Michael D. McIntyre, Acting DFO, at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting so that the comments may be made available to the APB for their consideration prior to the meeting.

Anyone requiring special accommodations should notify Mr. McIntyre at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.

This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Presence Sensing Device (PSD) Initiation Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.217(h). The Standard relates to a PSD in a mechanical power-press safety system. A PSD automatically stops the stroke of a mechanical power press when the device detects an operator entering a danger zone near the press. The PSD initiation standard contains a number of information collection requirements including: certifying brake monitor adjustments, alternatives to photoelectric PSDs, safety system design and installation, and worker training; annual recertification of safety systems; establishing and maintaining the original certification and validation records and the most recent recertification and revalidation records; affixing labels to test rods and to certified and recertified presses; and notifying an OSHA-recognized third-party validation organization when a safety system component fails, the employer modifies the safety system, or a point-of-operation injury occurs. Occupational Safety and Health Act sections 6(b)(7) and 8(c) authorize this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7), 29 U.S.C. 657(c).

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1218-0143.

OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2016 (81 FR 93962).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1218-0143. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

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

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

Agency: DOL-OSHA.

Title of Collection: Presence Sensing Device Initiation Standard.

OMB Control Number: 1218-0143.

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

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 10.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 1 hour.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

This notice of intent to grant an exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at http://technology.nasa.gov.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4), NEH is today republishing a notice of the existence and character of its systems of records in order to make available in one place in the Federal Register the most up-to-date information regarding these systems. This republication reflects administrative changes, such as agency restructuring and the increased use of electronic technology that NEH has implemented since it last published notice of its systems of records.

This document gives notice that the following NEH systems of records are in effect: