Federal Register Vol. 83, No.102,

The Administrative Conference of the United States makes recommendations to federal agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States regarding the improvement of administrative procedures (5 U.S.C. 594). The membership of the Conference, when meeting in plenary session, constitutes the Assembly of the Conference (5 U.S.C. 595).

Agenda: In addition to receiving updates on past, current, and pending Conference initiatives, the Assembly will consider four proposed recommendations as described below:

Paperwork Reduction Act Efficiencies. This proposed recommendation encourages collaboration between the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and federal agencies to maximize opportunities for making the information collection clearance process under the Paperwork Reduction Act more efficient, while still maintaining its integrity. The proposed recommendation encourages using generic clearances and common forms more frequently, providing more training to agencies, and improving several other aspects of the information collection clearance process.

Administrative Judges. This proposed recommendation addresses agency practices related to the use of administrative judges—adjudicators who preside over evidentiary hearings that are not governed by the adjudication provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. It offers recommendations for agencies to consider when designing or evaluating adjudication programs that promote impartiality in administrative judges and increase clarity and transparency with respect to the policies and procedures that govern their selection, oversight, evaluation, discipline, and removal.

Minimizing the Cost of Judicial Review. This proposed recommendation encourages federal agencies that anticipate litigation over their rules to consider early in the rulemaking process whether a rule is severable, meaning divisible into portions that can and should function independently, and outlines steps agencies should take if they intend that portions of a rule should continue in effect even though other portions have been held unlawful on judicial review. It also encourages courts adjudicating a challenge to an agency rule to solicit the parties' views on the issue of severability in appropriate circumstances.

Electronic Case Management in Federal Administrative Adjudication. This proposed recommendation offers guidance for agencies considering whether and how to implement an electronic case management system. It provides factors for agencies to consider in weighing the costs and benefits of an electronic case management system; sets forth measures an agency should take to ensure privacy, transparency, and security; and describes ways an electronic case management system may improve adjudicatory processes.

Additional information about the proposed recommendations and the order of the agenda, as well as other materials related to the meeting, can be found at the 69th Plenary Session page on the Conference's website: https://www.acus.gov/meetings-and-events/plenary-meeting/69th-plenary-session.

Public Participation: The Conference welcomes the attendance of the public at the meeting, subject to space limitations, and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities or special needs. Members of the public who wish to attend in person are asked to RSVP online at the 69th Plenary Session web page shown above, no later than two days before the meeting, in order to facilitate entry. Members of the public who attend the meeting may be permitted to speak only with the consent of the Chairman and the unanimous approval of the members of the Assembly. If you need special accommodations due to disability, please inform the Designated Federal Officer noted above at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. The public may also view the meeting through a live webcast, which will be available at: https://livestream.com/ACUS.

Written Comments: Persons who wish to comment on any of the proposed recommendations may do so by submitting a written statement either online by clicking “Submit a Comment” on the 69th Plenary Session web page shown above or by mail addressed to: June 2018 Plenary Session Comments, Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036. Written submissions must be received no later than 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, June 7, to assure consideration by the Assembly.

Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the USGSA.

Kansas, Minot, and Tri-State: Areas of designation include Colorado, Kansas, and parts of Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. Please see Federal Register (80 FR 7564-7565) for designations of areas open for designation.

Idaho, Ohio Valley, and Utah: Areas of designation include Utah and parts of Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Please see Federal Register (80 FR 37581) for designations of areas open for designation.

Cal-Agri and Virginia: Areas of designation include Virginia and parts of California. Please see Federal Register (80 FR 37580) for designations of areas open for designation.

State Grain: Areas of designation include parts of Minnesota. Please see Federal Register (82 FR 30818-30819) for designations of areas open for designation.

Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas of the official agencies specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas for Kansas, Minot, and Tri-State is for the period beginning July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2023. Designation in the specified geographic areas for Idaho, Ohio Valley, and Utah is for the period beginning October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2023. Designation in the specified geographic areas for Cal-Agri, Virginia, and State Grain is for the period beginning January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2023. To apply for designation or to request more information on the geographic areas serviced by these official agencies, contact Jacob Thein at the address listed above.

We are publishing this Notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Kansas, Minot, Tri-State, Idaho, Ohio Valley, Utah, Cal-Agri, Virginia, and State Grain official agencies. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant(s). Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

Background

FSIS is the public health regulatory agency responsible for ensuring that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged. For meat or meat food products, FSIS requires continuous inspection in the case of slaughter and at least daily inspection for processing, unless an exemption applies. The exemptions are located in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 623 and 661) and in FSIS's regulations (9 CFR 303.1).

This guideline describes each of the exemptions, to whom they apply, and which FSIS regulatory requirements must still be met. It also provides updated information on emerging business models and trends in procurement, and sales, and distribution. Generally, livestock slaughtered or processed by the owner or that which is custom slaughtered for use by the owner and his or her family or non-paying guests are exempt from FSIS's inspection requirements. Also exempt from inspection are businesses that meet FSIS's definitions of retail stores, restaurants, restaurant central kitchens, or caterers.

Businesses operating under an exemption are not exempt from the adulteration and misbranding requirements of the FMIA and may be subject to State or local regulatory requirements. FSIS regulations requiring recordkeeping, access to places of business, and the opportunity for examination of facilities, inventory, and records still apply.

FSIS encourages interested parties (e.g., those to whom an exemption may apply) to follow this guideline. This guideline represents current FSIS thinking, and FSIS will update it as necessary to reflect comments received and any additional information that becomes available. FSIS is seeking comments on this guideline as part of its efforts to continuously assess and improve the effectiveness of policy documents.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Fax: (202) 690-7442.

Email: [email protected].

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

If other persons who plan to attend the meeting require other accommodations, please contact Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] at the Eastern Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

Time will be set aside at the end of the briefing so that members of the public may address the Committee after the formal presentations have been completed. Persons interested in the issue are also invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, July 30, 2018. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, 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 https://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=240 and clicking on 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 meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-466-4520, conference ID: 1630102. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by June 15, 2018. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Tennessee Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Southern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-888-778-9069 and conference call ID: 6970676. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator may ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). 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 herein.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call number: 1-888-778-9069 and conference call ID: 6970676.

Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written 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=240; 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 website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

In the notice published on May 22, 2018 (83 FR 23643), FR Doc. 2018-10871 contained outdated information and this document corrects the IHA.

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).

Issuance of an MMPA 101(a)(5)(D) authorization requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

NMFS preliminary determined the issuance of the proposed IHA is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 (issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for which no serious injury or mortality is anticipated) of NOAA's Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, and we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude this categorical exclusion under NEPA.

We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to making a final decision as to whether application of this CE is appropriate in this circumstance.

On November 21, 2017, WSDOT submitted a request to NMFS requesting an IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of marine mammal species incidental to Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle, Washington, from August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019. After receiving the revised project description and the revised IHA application, NMFS determined that the IHA application is adequate and complete on April 4, 2018. NMFS is proposing to authorize the take by Level A and Level B harassments of the following marine mammal species: Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina); northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris); California sea lion (Zalophus californianus); Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus); killer whale (Orcinus orca); long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus capensis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus); humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata); harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); and Dall's porpoise (P. dalli). Neither WSDOT nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

NMFS previously issued an IHA to WSDOT for the first year of this project (FR 21579; July 7, 2017). WSDOT complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHA and information regarding their monitoring results may be found in the Estimated Take section.

The purpose of the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock is to preserve the transportation function of an aging, deteriorating and seismically deficient facility to continue providing safe and reliable service. The project will also address existing safety concerns related to conflicts between vehicles and pedestrian traffic and operational inefficiencies.

Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water work timing restrictions to protect ESA-listed salmonids, planned WSDOT in-water construction is limited each year to July 16 through February 15.

The Seattle Ferry Terminal at Colman Dock, serving State Route 519, is located on the downtown Seattle waterfront, in King County, Washington. The terminal services vessels from the Bainbridge Island and Bremerton routes, and is the most heavily used terminal in the Washington State Ferry system. The Seattle terminal is located in Section 6, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, and is adjacent to Elliott Bay, tributary to Puget Sound (Figure 1-2 of the IHA application). Land use in the area is highly urban, and includes business, industrial, the Port of Seattle container loading facility, residential, the Pioneer Square Historic District and local parks.

The project will reconfigure the Colman Dock while maintaining approximately the same vehicle holding capacity as current conditions. The construction began in August 2017. In the 2017-2018 season, the construction activities were focused on the South Trestle, Terminal Building Foundation, and the temporary and permanent Passenger Offloading Facility.

In the 2018-2019 season, WSDOT plans to continue the project by constructing the North Trestle, and Slip 3 bridge seat, overhead loading, wingwall, and inner dolphin. Both impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and pile removal would be conducted. A total of 37 days are estimated for pile driving and 77 days for pile removal.

In-water construction methods include:

• Installing 119 36-inch (in) permanent steel piles with a vibratory hammer, and then proofed with an impact hammer for the last 5-10 feet;

• Installing six 36-in and (8) 30-in steel piles with a vibratory hammer;

• Installing one 108-in steel pile with a vibratory hammer;

• Removing all existing 12-in steel, 14-in timber, 14-in H, 24-in steel and 30-in steel piles with a vibratory hammer;

• Installing and then removing eight 24-in Slip 3 Overhead loading temporary piles with a vibratory hammer; and

• Installing and then removing 147 24-in temporary template piles with a vibratory hammer.

A list of pile driving and removal activities is provided in Table 1.

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

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more general information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).

Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the lower Puget Sound area and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is 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 (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey 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 harbor seal Washington northern inland waters stock, the abundance is based on radio-tagging studies conducted at three Washington inland waters with correcting factors described in the 2016 SARs (Jefferies et al., 2003; Carretta et al., 2017). For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's 2016 U.S. Pacific Draft Marine Mammal SARs (Carretta et al., 2017). All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2016 SARs (Carretta et al., 2017); and draft 2017 SARs (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).

All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Table 2. However, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of humpback whale and Southern Resident killer whale (SRKW) and the implementation of monitoring and mitigation measures are such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here. The occurrence of humpback whale in the WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal Project area is considered extralimital, and WSDOT's 2017 monitoring report showed no sighting of this species. Although the SRKW could occur in the vicinity of the project area, WSDOT proposes to implement strict monitoring and mitigation measures with assistance from local marine mammal researchers and observers. Thus, the take of this marine mammal stock can be avoided (see details in Proposed Mitigation section).

In addition, the sea otter may be found in Puget Sound area However, this species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. 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. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (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 hertz (Hz) and 35 kilohertz (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;

• 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;

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 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).

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 et al., 2013).

For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. Eleven marine mammal species (7 cetacean and 4 pinniped (2 otariid and 2 phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean species that may be present, one species is classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., gray whale), two are classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise), and the rest of them mid-frequency cetaceans.

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.

Potential impacts to marine mammals from the proposed Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals dolphin relocation project are from noise generated during in-water pile driving and pile removal activities.

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

The WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal Project using in-water pile driving and pile removal could adversely affect marine mammal species and stocks by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the activity area.

Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift (TS)—an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran et al., 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of TS just after exposure is the initial TS. If the TS eventually returns to zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is a temporary threshold shift (TTS) (Southall et al., 2007).

Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)—When animals exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced TS. An animal can experience TTS or permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's hearing sensitivity might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can also occur in a specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above for TTS.

For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran, 2015). For pinnipeds in water, data are limited to measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, and California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b).

Lucke et al. (2009) found a TS of a harbor porpoise after exposing it to airgun noise with a received sound pressure level (SPL) at 200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 micropascal (μPa), which corresponds to a sound exposure level of 164.5 dB re: 1 μPa2 s after integrating exposure. Because the airgun noise is a broadband impulse, one cannot directly determine the equivalent of root mean square (rms) SPL from the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a conservative conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from seismic surveys (McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for the difference between peak-to-peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the rms SPL for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 μPa, and the received levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would be higher. Therefore, based on these studies, NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor porpoises is lower than other cetacean species empirically tested (Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et al., 2002; Kastelein and Jennings, 2012).

Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note, reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so one can infer that strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.

In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals, which utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as from human sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction.

Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize. Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).

Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). For WSDOT's dolphin relocation project, noises from vibratory pile driving and pile removal contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels in the project area, thus increasing potential for or severity of masking. Baseline ambient noise levels in the vicinity of project area are high due to ongoing shipping, construction and other activities in the Puget Sound.

Finally, marine mammals' exposure to certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al., 1995), such as changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).

The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) to predict the onset of behavioral harassment from impulse noises (such as impact pile driving), and 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for continuous noises (such as vibratory pile driving). For the WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Ferry Terminal, both 120-dB and 160-dB levels are considered for effects analysis because WSDOT plans to use both impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and pile removal.

The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity, duration, and context of the effects.

The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile removal and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.

With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to communicate (Tavolga et al., 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson and Dill, 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the strength and direction of sound (Hawkins, 1981). Primary factors determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the signal in relation to the natural background noise level.

The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition (Engas et al., 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of sound (such as noise from impact pile driving) rather than continuous signals (such as noise from vibratory pile driving) (Blaxter et al., 1981), and a quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal intensity rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the same level.

During the coastal construction, only a small fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to fish species would be short-term and fish would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the proposed construction would have little, if any, impact on marine mammals' prey availability in the area where construction work is planned.

Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species.

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized 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).

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 noise generated from vibratory pile driving and removal. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown measures—discussed in detail below in Proposed Mitigation section), Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.

As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.

Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the take estimate.

Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).

Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for continuous (e.g. vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources.

Applicant's proposed activity includes the generation of impulse (impact pile driving) and non-impulse (vibratory pile driving and removal) sources; and, therefore, both 160- and 120-dB re 1 μPa (rms) are used.

Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). Applicant's proposed activity would generate and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and pile removal) noises. These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product and are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.

The source level for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 24- and 30-in steel pile is based on vibratory pile driving of the 30-in steel pile at Port Townsend (WSDOT, 2010). The unweighted SPLrms source level at 10 meters (m) from the pile is 174 dB re 1 re 1 μPa.

The source level for vibratory pile driving of the 36-in steel piles is based on vibratory test pile driving of 36-in steel piles at Port Townsend in 2010 (Laughlin 2011). Recordings of vibratory pile driving were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile. The results show that the unweighted SPLrms for vibratory pile driving of 36-in steel pile was 177 dB re 1 μPa.

The source level for vibratory pile driving of the 108-in steel pile is based on measurements of 72-in steel piles vibratory driving conducted by CALTRANS. The unweighted SPLrms source level ranged between 170 and 180 dB re 1 μPa at 10 m from the pile (CALTRANS 2015). The value of 180 dB is chosen to be more conservative.

The source level for impact pile driving of the 36-in steel pile is based on impact test pile driving for the 36-in steel pile at Mukilteo in November 2006 (WSDOT 2007). Recordings of the impact pile driving that were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile were analyzed using Matlab. The results show that the unweighted source levels are 178 dB re 1 μPa2-s for SELss and 193 dB re 1 μPa for SPLrms. The peak source level for impact pile driving of the 36-in steel pile is based on measurement conducted by CALTRANS for the same type and dimension of the pile, which is 210 dBpk re 1 μPa.

The source level for vibratory pile removal of 14-in timber pile is based measurements conducted at the Port Townsend Ferry Terminal during vibratory removal of a 12-in timber pile by WSDOT (Laughlin 2011). The recorded source level is 152 dBrms re 1 μPa at 16 m from the pile, with an adjusted source level of 155 dBrms re 1 μPa at 10 m.

The source levels for vibratory pile removal of 12-in steel and 14-in steel H piles are based on vibratory pile driving of 12-in steel pipe pile measured by CALTRANS. The unweighted source level is 155 dBrms re 1 μPa at 10 m.

A summary of source levels is presented in Table 4.

These source levels are used to compute the Level A injury zones and to estimate the Level B harassment zones. For Level A harassment zones, since the peak source levels for both pile driving are below the injury thresholds, cumulative SEL were used to do the calculations using the NMFS acoustic guidance (NMFS 2016).

The Level B harassment ensonified areas for vibratory removal of the 14-in timber, 12-in steel, 14-in steel H, and 18-in concrete piles are based on the above source level of 155 dBrms re 1 μPa at 10 m, applying practical spreading loss of 15*log(R) for transmission loss calculation. The derived distance to the 120-dB Level B zone is 2,175 m.

For Level B harassment ensonified areas for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 24-in, 30-in, 36-in, and 108-in steel piles, the distance is based on measurements conducted during the year 1 Seattle multimodal project at Colman. The result showed that pile driving noise of two 36-in steel piles being concurrently driven was no longer detectable at a range of 5.4 miles (8.69 km) (WSDOT 2017). Therefore, the distance of 8,690 m is selected as the Level B harassment distance for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 24-in, 30-in, 36-in and 108-in steel piles.

The Level B harassment ensonified area for impact pile driving of the 36-in steel piles is based on the above source level of 193 dBrms re 1 μPa at 10 m, applying practical spreading loss of 15*log(R) for transmission loss calculation. The derived distance to the 160-dB Level B zone is 1,585 m.

For Level A harassment, calculation is based on pile driving duration of each pile and the number of piles installed or removed per day, using NMFS optional spreadsheet.

Distances of ensonified area for different pile driving/removal activities for different marine mammal hearing groups is present in Table 5.

In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.

All marine mammal density data except harbor seal, California sea lion, harbor porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, and short-beaked common dolphin are from the U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Report. For harbor seal and California sea lion, because WSDOT has better local distribution data based on recent survey in the area, local animal abundance are used to calculate the take numbers. Specifically, the occurrence of these two species are based on local seal abundance information off the Seattle area from Year One (2017/18) of WSDOT's Seattle Colman Project.

For bottlenose dolphin and short-beaked common dolphin, no density estimate is available. Therefore, take numbers for these two species are based on prior anecdotal observations and strandings in the action area (Shuster et al., 2015; Huggins et al., 2016).

Harbor porpoise density is based on a recent study by Smultea et al. (2017) for the Seattle area near the Colman Dock.

A summary of marine mammal density, days and Level A and Level B harassment areas from different pile driving and removal activities is provided in Table 6.

Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.

For all other marine mammals, takes were calculated as: Take = ensonified area × average animal abundance in the area × pile driving days. All Level A takes were further adjusted by subtract animals that would occur within the Level A harassment zone (except for harbor seal where a 60-m shutdown zone would be implemented), where pile driving activities that could cause Level A injury for all marine mammals, except harbor seal, harbor porpoise, and Dall's porpoise, would be suspended when an animal is observed to approach such a zone. Further, the number of Level B takes were adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes.

The harbor seal take estimate is based on local seal abundance information off the Seattle area from Year One (2017/18) of WSDOT's Seattle Colman Project. During 99 days of marine mammal visual monitoring, 813 harbor seals were observed, an average of 8.212 animals/day, with a one-day high of 43 observations on 10/24/17 (WSDOT 2018b). By adjusting the averaged observation of harbor seals to 11 animals/day as a conservative estimate to account for possible missed observation, and based on a total of 114 pile driving days for the WSDOT Seattle Colman Dock project, it is estimated that up to 1,254 harbor seals could be exposed to noise levels associated with “take”. Since 17 days would involve vibratory/impact pile driving of 36-in steel piles (16 days) and vibratory driving of and 108-in steel pile (1 day) with Level A zones beyond shutdown zones (231 m and 122 m, respectively, vs. the 60-m shutdown zone), we consider that 187 harbor seals exposed during these 17 days would experience Level A harassment. The difference between the 1,254 total takes and the 187 Level A takes makes up the harbor seal Level B takes, which is 1,067 animals.

The California sea lion take estimate is also based on local sea lion abundance information from the Seattle Colman Project. During 99 days of marine mammal visual monitoring 1,047 California sea lions were observed, an average of 11 animals/day, with a one-day high of 48 observations on 1/8/2018. (WSDOT 2018b). By adjusting the averaged observation of harbor seals to 14 animals/day as a conservative estimate to account for possible missed observation, and based on a total of 114 pile driving days for the WSDOT Seattle Colman Dock project, it is estimated that up to 1,596 California sea lions could be exposed to noise levels associated with “take”. Although the Level A zones of otariids are all very small (<33 m, Table 5) and WSDOT will implement strict shutdown measures if a sea lion is observed to be moving towards the Level A zone, it is still possible that in rare occasions an animal could enter the Level A zone undetected. We therefore, estimate that one California sea lion could be taken by Level A harassment on each of the 16 days that involve vibratory/impact pile driving of 36-in steel piles when the Level A zone is 32 m. Thus a total of 16 Level A harassment of California sea lion is estimated. The difference between the 1,596 total takes and the 16 Level A takes makes up the California sea lions Level B takes, which is 1,580 animals. The same reasoning for estimating Steller sea lion Level A takes, which results an estimated 16 Level A takes and 216 Level B takes.

The Common bottlenose dolphin estimate is based on sightings data from Cascadia Research Collective. Between September 2017 and March 2018, a group of up to five to six individuals was sighted in South Puget Sound (CRC 2017/18). It is assumed that this group is still present in the area.

Given how rare Common bottlenose dolphins are in the area, it is unlikely they would be present on a daily basis. Instead it is assumed that they may be present in the Level B harassment zone once a month during the in-water work window (7 months), and adjusted for potential group size of 5-10 individuals with an average of 7 animals per group.

The Long-beaked Common dolphin estimate is based on sightings data from Cascadia Research Collective. Four to six Long-beaked Common dolphins have remained in Puget Sound since June 2016, and four animals with distinct markings have been seen multiple times and in every season of the year as of October 2017 (CRC 2017).

Given how rare Long-beaked Common dolphins are in the area, it is unlikely they would be present on a daily basis. Instead it is assumed that they may be present in the Level B harassment zone once a month during the in-water work window (7 months), and adjusted for potential group size of 5-10 individuals with an average of 7 animals per group.

For harbor porpoise, density based Level A take calculation yields a total of 28 animals. However, due to the large Level A distance during the 36-in pile driving (990 m) during 16 days and the 108-in pile driving (296 m) during one day, its Level A take is readjusted to account for a typical animal group size of 3 multiplied by these 17 days with large Level A zones. Therefore, we estimate that a total of 51 harbor porpoise could be taken by Level A harassment.

For Dall's porpoise, due to its relatively uncommon occurrence in comparison to harbor porpoise, the estimated Level A take is scaled down by 1/3 that of harbor porpoise, yielding 17 Level A takes.

For calculated take number less than 15, such as northern elephant seals, transient killer whales, gray whales, and minke whales, takes numbers were adjusted to account for group encounter and the likelihood of encountering. Specifically, for northern elephant seal, take of 15 animals is estimated based on the likelihood of encountering this species during the project period. For transient killer whale, takes of 30 animals is estimated based on the group size and the likelihood of encountering in the area. For gray whale and minke whale, takes of 30 and 8 animals each are estimated, respectively, based on the likelihood of encountering.

For SRKWs, WSDOT will implement strict monitoring and mitigation measures and to suspend pile driving activities when such animal is detected in the vicinity of the action area (see Proposed Mitigation section below).

A summary of estimated takes based on the above analysis is listed in Table 7.

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 adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider 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. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); 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.

1. Time Restriction.

Work would occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted.

2. Establishing and Monitoring Level A, Level B Harassment Zones, and Shutdown Zones.

WSDOT shall establish shutdown zones that encompass the distances within which marine mammals could be taken by Level A harassment (see Table 7 above) except for harbor seal. For Level A harassment zones that is less than 10 m from the source, a minimum of 10 m distance should be established as a shutdown zone. For harbor seal, a maximum of 60 m shutdown zone would be implemented if the actual Level A harassment zone exceeds 60 m. This is because there are a few habituated harbor seals that repeated occur within the larger Level A zone, which makes implementing a shutdown zone larger than 60 m infeasible.

A summary of exclusion zones is provided in Table 8.

WSDOT shall also establish a Zone of Influence (ZOI) based on the Level B harassment zones for take monitoring where received underwater SPLs are higher than 160 dBrms re 1 µPa for impulsive noise sources (impact pile driving) and 120 dBrms re 1 µPa for non-impulsive noise sources (vibratory pile driving and pile removal).

NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSO) shall conduct an initial 30-minute survey of the exclusion zones to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zones before pile driving and pile removal of a pile segment begins. If marine mammals are found within the exclusion zone, pile driving of the segment would be delayed until they move out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above water and then dives below, the contractor would wait 15 minutes. If no marine mammals are seen by the observer in that time it can be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone.

If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a marine mammal is sighted within the designated exclusion zone prior to commencement of pile driving, or if a shutdown occurs due to marine mammal sighting, the observer(s) must notify the pile driving operator (or other authorized individual) immediately and continue to monitor the exclusion zone. Operations may not resume until the marine mammal has exited the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have elapsed since the last sighting.

3. Soft-Start.

A “soft-start” technique is intended to allow marine mammals to vacate the area before the impact pile driver reaches full power. Whenever there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without impact pile driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up procedures described below.

Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at the beginning of impact pile driving, or if pile driving has ceased for more than 30 minutes.

4. Shutdown Measures.

WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is detected within an exclusion zone or is about to enter an exclusion zone listed in Tables 8.

WSDOT shall also implement shutdown measures if SRKWs or humpback whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the ZOI during in-water construction activities.

If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer whale, it shall be assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT shall implement the shutdown measure.

If a SRKW, an unidentified killer whale, or a humpback whale enters the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or pile removal shall be suspended until the whale exits the ZOI to avoid further level B harassment.

Further, WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of authorized takes for any particular species reaches the limit under the IHA or if a marine mammal observed is not authorized for take under this IHA, if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during in-water construction activities.

5. Coordination With Local Marine Mammal Research Network.

Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, the Orca Network and/or Center for Whale Research will be contacted by WSDOT to find out the location of the nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings Network consists of a list of over 600 (and growing) residents, scientists, and government agency personnel in the U.S. and Canada. Sightings are called or emailed into the Orca Network and immediately distributed to other sighting networks including: The NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, the Center for Whale Research, Cascadia Research, the Whale Museum Hotline and the British Columbia Sightings Network.

Sightings information collected by the Orca Network includes detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a system of interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine environment of Haro Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study orca communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology and local climatic conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center measures average in-water sound levels and automatically detects unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow researchers to hear when different marine mammals come into the region. This acoustic network, combined with the volunteer (incidental) visual sighting network allows researchers to document presence and location of various marine mammal species.

With this level of coordination in the region of activity, WSDOT will be able to get real-time information on the presence or absence of whales before starting any pile driving.

Based on our evaluation of the required measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the prescribed 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); and

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its dolphin relocation project at Bremerton and Edmonds ferry terminals. The purposes of marine mammal monitoring are to implement mitigation measures and learn more about impacts to marine mammals from WSDOT's construction activities. The PSOs will observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following requirements:

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

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

3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience;

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

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

Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be conducted using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 × 42 power). Due to the different sizes of ZOI from different pile types, three different ZOIs and different monitoring protocols corresponding to a specific pile type will be established.

• For Level B harassment zones with radii less than 1,600 m, 3 PSOs will be monitoring from land.

• For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 1,600 m but smaller than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land.

• For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land with an additional 1 PSO monitoring from a ferry.

6. PSOs shall collect the following information during marine mammal monitoring:

• Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for each day conducted (monitoring period);

• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven;

• Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile types, average driving times, etc.;

• Weather parameters in each monitoring period (e.g., wind speed, percent cloud cover, visibility);

• Water conditions in each monitoring period (e.g., sea state, tide state);

• For each marine mammal sighting:

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

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

○ Location and distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point; and

○ Estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the Level B zone;

• Description of implementation of mitigation measures within each monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or delay);

• Other human activity in the area within each monitoring period

To verify the required monitoring distance, the exclusion zones and ZOIs will be determined by using a range finder or hand-held global positioning system device.

WSDOT will conduct noise field measurement to determine the actual Level B distance from the source during vibratory pile of the first pile. If the actual Level B harassment distance is less than modelled, the number of PSOs will be adjusted based on the criteria listed above.

WSDOT is required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. In the case if WSDOT intends to renew the IHA (if issued) in a subsequent year, a monitoring report should be submitted 60 days before the expiration of the current IHA (if issued). This report would detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS would have an opportunity to provide comments on the report, and if NMFS has comments, WSDOT would address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days.

In addition, NMFS would require WSDOT to notify NMFS' Office of Protected Resources and NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator within 48 hours of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the construction site. WSDOT shall provide NMFS and the Stranding Network with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition, if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video (if available).

In the event that WSDOT finds an injured or dead marine mammal that is not in the construction area, WSDOT would report the same information as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible.

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' 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).

To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 7, given that the anticipated effects of WSDOT's Seattle Multimodal at Colman Dock project involving pile driving and pile removal on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis by species for this activity, or else species-specific factors would be identified and analyzed.

Although a few marine mammals (132 harbor seals, 12 harbor porpoises, and 1 Dall's porpoise) are estimated to experience Level A harassment in the form of PTS if they stay within the Level A harassment zone during the entire pile driving for the day, the degree of injury is expected to be mild and is not likely to affect the reproduction or survival of the individual animals. It is expected that, if hearing impairments occurs, most likely the affected animal would lose a few dB in its hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is not likely to affect its survival and recruitment. Hearing impairment that occur for these individual animals would be limited to the dominant frequency of the noise sources, i.e., in the low-frequency region below 2 kHz. Therefore, the degree of PTS is not likely to affect the echolocation performance of the two porpoise species, which use frequencies mostly above 100 kHz. Nevertheless, for all marine mammal species, it is known that in general animals avoid areas where sound levels could cause hearing impairment. Therefore, it is not likely that an animal would stay in an area with intense noise that could cause severe levels of hearing damage. In addition, even if an animal receives a TTS, the TTS would be a one-time event from the exposure, making it unlikely that the TTS would evolve into PTS. Furthermore, Level A take estimates are based on the assumption that the animals are randomly distributed in the project area and would not avoid intense noise levels that could cause TTS or PTS. In reality, animals tend to avoid areas where noise levels are high (Richardson et al., 1995). Nonetheless, we evaluate the estimated take in this negligible impact analysis.

For these species except harbor seal, harbor porpoise and Dall's porpoise, takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral and TTS). Marine mammals present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels during pile driving and pile removal and the implosion noise. A few marine mammals could experience TTS if they occur within the Level B TTS ZOI. However, as discussed earlier in this document, TTS is a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity when exposed to loud sound, and the hearing threshold is expected to recover completely within minutes to hours. Therefore, it is not considered an injury.

Portions of the SRKW is within the proposed action area. However, WSDOT would be required to implement strict mitigation measures to suspend pile driving or pile removal activities when this stock is detected in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the potential effects to SRKW would be fully mitigated. There is no other important areas for marine mammals, such as know important feeding, pupping, or other areas.

The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” subsection. There is no ESA designated critical area in the vicinity of the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock area. The project activities would not permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may kill some fish and cause other fish to leave the area temporarily, thus impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range. However, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Therefore, given the consideration of potential impacts to marine mammal prey species and their physical environment, WSDOT's proposed construction activity at Colman Dock would not adversely affect marine mammal habitat.

• Injury—only 3 species of marine mammals would experience Level A affects in the form of mild PTS, which is expected to be of small degree.

• Behavioral disturbance—eleven species/stocks of marine mammals would experience behavioral disturbance and TTS from the WSDOT's Seattle Colman Dock project. However, as discussed earlier, the area to be affected is small and the duration of the project is short. Although portion of the SWKR critical habitat is within the project area, strict mitigation measures such as implementing shutdown measures and suspending pile driving will mitigate such effects. No other important habitat for marine mammals exist in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the overall impacts are expected to be insignificant.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total 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 anticipated to be taken to the most appropriate estimation of the relevant species or stock size in our determination of whether an authorization would be limited to small numbers of marine mammals.

The estimated takes are below 13 percent of the population for all marine mammals except harbor porpoise (Table 7). For harbor porpoise, the estimate of 3,997 incidences of takes would be 36 percent of the population, if each single take were a unique individual. However, this is highly unlikely because the harbor porpoise in Washington waters shows site fidelity to small areas for periods of time that can extend between seasons (Hanson et al., 1999; Hanson 2007a, 2007b). For example, Hanson et al., (1999) tracked a female harbor porpoise for 215 days, during which it remained exclusively within the southern Strait of Georgia region. Based on studies by Jefferson et al. (2016), harbor porpoise abundance in the southern Puget Sound region, which encompasses waters off Seattle, is 550. Therefore, if the estimated incidents of take accrued to all the animals expected to occur in the entire southern Puget Sound area (550 animals), it would be 4.90 percent of the Washington inland water stock of the harbor porpoise.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of each species or stock 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.

The California-Oregon-Washington stock of humpback whale and the Southern Resident stock of killer whale are the only marine mammal species listed under the ESA that could occur in the vicinity of WSDOT's proposed construction projects. Two DPSs of humpback whales, the Mexico DPS and the Central America DPS, are listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA, respectively. NMFS is proposing to authorize take of California/Oregon/Washington stock of humpback whale, which are listed under the ESA. NMFS worked with WSDOT to implement shutdown measures in the IHA that would avoid takes of both SR killer whale and humpback whales. Therefore, NMFS determined that no ESA-listed marine mammal species would be affected as a result of WSDOT's Seattle Colman Dock construction project.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to WSDOT for conducting Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in Seattle, Washington, between August 1, 2018, and July 31, 2019, 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 Authorization is valid from August 1, 2018, through July 31, 2019.

2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with in-water construction work at the Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock in the State of Washington.

3. (a) The species authorized taking by Level A and Level B harassments and in the numbers shown in Table 7 are: Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), killer whale (Orcinus orca), long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus capensis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall's porpoise (P. dali), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris).

(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the following acoustic sources and from the following activities:

(1) Vibratory pile and impact pile driving; and

(2) Vibratory pile removal.

4. Prohibitions.

(a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in Table 7 of this notice. The taking by serious injury or death of these species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited unless separately authorized or exempted under the MMPA and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization.

(b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition 7(a), are not present in conformance with condition 7(a) of this Authorization.

5. Mitigation.

(a) Time Restriction. In-water construction work shall occur only during daylight hours.

(b) Establishing and Monitoring Level A, Level B Harassment Zones, and Shutdown Zones.

(i) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal activities, WSDOT shall establish Level A harassment zones. The modeled Level A zones are summarized in Table 5.

(ii) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal activities, WSDOT shall establish Level B harassment zones. The modeled Level B zones are summarized in Table 5.

(iii) Before the commencement of in-water pile driving/removal activities, WSDOT shall establish exclusion zones. The proposed exclusion zones are summarized in Table 8.

(iv) If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a marine mammal is sighted within the designated exclusion zone prior to commencement of pile driving, or if a shutdown occurs due to marine mammal sighting, the observer(s) must notify the pile driving operator (or other authorized individual) immediately and continue to monitor the exclusion zone. Operations may not resume until the marine mammal has exited the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have elapsed since the last sighting.

(c) Monitoring of marine mammals shall take place starting 30 minutes before pile driving begins until 30 minutes after pile driving ends.

(d) Soft Start

(i) When there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without pile driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up procedures described below.

(ii) Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at the beginning of impact pile driving or removal, or if pile driving has ceased for more than 30 minutes.

(e) Shutdown Measures

(i) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is detected within or to be approaching the exclusion zones provided in Table 8 of this notice.

(ii) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if SRKWs (SRKWs) or humpback whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone (zone of influence, or ZOI) during in-water construction activities.

(iii) If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or removal, and it is unknown whether it is a SRKW or a transient killer whale, it shall be assumed to be a SRKW and WSDOT shall implement the shutdown measure identified in 6(e)(ii).

(iv) If a SRKW or a humpback whale enters the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or pile removal shall be suspended until the SRKW exits the ZOI to avoid further level B harassment.

(v) WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of any allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit under the IHA or if a marine mammal observed is not authorized for take under this IHA, if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during pile removal activities.

(f) Coordination with Local Marine Mammal Research Network and obtaining marine mammal sightings and acoustic detection data. Prior to the start of pile driving, WSDOT will contact the Orca Network and/or Center for Whale Research to get real-time information on the presence or absence of whales before starting any pile driving,

6. Monitoring.

(a) Protected Species Observers.

WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its construction project. NMFS-approved PSOs will meet the following qualifications.

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

(ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer.

(iii) Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience.

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

(v) NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.

(b) Monitoring Protocols: PSOs shall be present on site at all times during pile removal and driving.

(i) A 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required before the first pile driving or pile removal of the day. A 30-minute post-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required after the last pile driving or pile removal of the day. If the constructors take a break between subsequent pile driving or pile removal for more than 30 minutes, then additional 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring will be required before the next start-up of pile driving or pile removal.

(ii) Marine mammal visual monitoring will be conducted for different zones of influence (ZOIs) based on different sizes of piles being driven or removed.

(A) For Level B harassment zones with radii less than 1,600 m, 3 PSOs will be monitoring from land.

(B) For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 1,600 m but smaller than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land.

(C) For Level B harassment zones with radii larger than 2,500 m, 4 PSOs will be monitoring from land with an additional 1 PSO monitoring from a ferry.

(iii) If marine mammals are observed, the following information will be documented:

(A) Species of observed marine mammals;

(B) Number of observed marine mammal individuals;

(C) Behavior of observed marine mammals; and

(D) Location within the ZOI.

(c) Passive Acoustic Monitoring:

(i) WSDOT will conduct noise field measurement to determine the actual Level B distance from the source during vibratory pile of the first pile.

(ii) If the actual Level B harassment distance is less than modelled, the number of PSOs will be adjusted based on the criteria listed above.

7. Reporting.

(a) WSDOT shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the construction work or within 90 days of the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes first. This report shall detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed.

(b) IF WSDOT plans to renew the IHA for an additional year, a monitoring report must be received within 60 days before the expiration of an existing IHA.

(c) If comments are received from NMFS Office of Protected Resources on the draft report, a final report shall be submitted to NMFS within 30 days thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report will be considered to be the final report.

(d) In the unanticipated event that the construction activities clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or mortality, WSDOT shall immediately cease all operations and immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the following information:

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

(ii) description of the incident;

(iii) status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

(iv) environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, sea state, cloud cover, visibility, and water depth);

(v) description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

(vi) species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

(vii) the fate of the animal(s); and

(viii) photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is available).

(e) Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with WSDOT to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. WSDOT may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

(f) In the event that WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), WSDOT will immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the same information identified above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with WSDOT to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

(g) In the event that WSDOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO 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), WSDOT shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the discovery. WSDOT shall provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. WSDOT can continue its operations under such a case.

8. 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.

9. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of each contractor who performs the construction work at the Colman ferry terminals.

We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed WSDOT Seattle Multimodal Project at Colman Dock. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section, provided all of the following conditions are met:

• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to expiration of the current IHA.

• The request for renewal must include the following:

(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed activities or include changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, take estimates, or mitigation and monitoring requirements.

(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.

Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, and the original findings remain valid.

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

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On 4/20/2018 (83 FR 77), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the National Security Education Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on June 4, 2018, of the National Security Education Board. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement. 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.

Purpose of the Meeting: Purpose of the meeting, in compliance with the David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991, 50 U.S.C. 1901, is to discuss National Security Education Program updates and recommendations.

Agenda: 10:00 a.m.: National Security Education Board (NSEB) Full Meeting Begins Dr. Michael Nugent, Director, Defense Language and National Security Education Office (DLNSEO) and Director, National Security Education Program (NSEP) Ms. Veronica Daigle, Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) and Chair NSEB Mr. Fred Drummond, Deputy Assistant Secretary Of Defense (Force Education & Training) and DoD Senior Language Authority 10:30 a.m.: Updates to the Board and Discussion Dr. Michael Nugent, Director DLNSEO/Director NSEP 11:00 a.m.: Class of 2018 Boren Scholars and Fellows Ms. Alison Patz, Associate Director of Outreach and Service, NSEP Ms. Chelsea Sypher, Head of NSEP Programs, Institute of International Education 11:30 a.m.: National Engagement: State Roadmap Partnerships Mr. Howard Stephenson, State Senator, State of Utah Mr. Bob Behning, State Representative, State of Indiana Dr. Dianna Murphy, Associate Director, University of Wisconsin, Madison Dr. Winnie Brownell, Dean Emerita, University of Rhode Island 12:30 p.m.: Working Lunch with Boren Scholars and Fellows 1:30 p.m.: Critical Skills Initiatives: Internships, Clearances, National Language Service Corps Dr. Michael Nugent Mr. Jim Seacord, Acting Director Human Capital Management Office, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) 2:30 p.m.: Board Working Group Overview and Key Takeaways Dr. Esther Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO, NAFSA: Association of International Educators 3:30 p.m.: Board Discussion 4:15 p.m.: Adjourn Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 102-3.140 and sections 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Department of Defense National Security Education Board about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of the planned meeting. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Official for the National Security Education Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Official can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://facadatabase.gov/.

Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description Purpose of Programs National Resource Centers Program

The NRC Program provides grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs) or consortia of IHEs to establish, strengthen, and operate comprehensive and undergraduate centers that will be national resources for: (a) Teaching of modern foreign languages; (b) instruction in fields needed to provide a full understanding of world regions where the modern foreign languages are used; (c) research and training in international studies and international and foreign language aspects of professional and other fields of study; and (d) instruction and research on issues in world affairs.

The FLAS Program allocates academic year and summer fellowships to IHEs and consortia of IHEs to assist meritorious undergraduate and graduate students receiving modern foreign language training in combination with area studies, international studies, or the international aspects of professional studies. FLAS fellowships may also assist graduate students engaged in predissertation level study, preparation for dissertation research, dissertation research abroad, or dissertation writing.

Priorities: This notice contains two absolute priorities and two competitive preference priorities for the NRC Program. Absolute Priority 1 is from section 602(e) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1122(e)). Absolute Priority 2 is from the program regulations (34 CFR 656.23). The competitive preference priorities are from the notice of final priorities for the NRC Program published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2014 (79 FR 31028). This notice also contains two competitive preference priorities for the FLAS Program. Competitive Preference Priority 1 is from the program regulations (34 CFR 657.22) and Competitive Preference Priority 2 is from the notice of final priorities for the FLAS Program published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2014 (79 FR 31031).

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2018, these priorities are absolute priorities for the NRC Program. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet these priorities.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1.

Applications that provide (1) an explanation of how the activities funded by the grant will reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of views and generate debate on world regions and international affairs; and (2) a description of how the applicant will encourage government service in areas of national need, as identified by the Secretary, as well as in areas of need in the education, business, and non-profit sectors.

Absolute Priority 2.

Applications that provide for teacher training activities on the language, languages, area studies, or thematic focus of the Center.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2018, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional five points depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 1, and up to an additional five points depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 2. An application may receive a total of up to 10 additional points under the competitive preference priorities.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—Collaboration with Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) or Community Colleges (up to 5 points).

Applications that propose significant and sustained collaborative activities with one or more Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) (as defined in this notice) and/or with one or more community colleges (as defined in this notice). These activities must be designed to incorporate international, intercultural, or global dimensions into the curriculum of the MSI(s) or community college(s), and to improve foreign language, area, and intercultural studies or international business instruction at the MSI(s) or community college(s). If an applicant institution is an MSI or a community college, that institution may propose intra-campus collaborative activities instead of, or in addition to, collaborative activities with other MSIs or community colleges.

For the purpose of this priority:

Community college means an institution that meets the definition in section 312(f) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)); or an institution of higher education as defined in section 101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001) that awards degrees and certificates, more than 50 percent of which are not bachelor's degrees (or an equivalent) or master's, professional, or other advanced degrees.

Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) means an institution that is eligible to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of title III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the HEA.

The institutions designated eligible under title III and title V may be viewed at the following link: www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html.

Competitive Preference Priority 2—Collaborative Activities with Teacher Education Programs (up to 5 points).

Applications that propose collaborative activities with units such as schools or colleges of education, schools of liberal arts and sciences, post-baccalaureate teacher education programs, teacher education programs, and teacher preparation programs on or off the NRC campus. These collaborative activities are designed to support the integration of an international, intercultural, or global dimension and world languages into teacher education, and/or to promote the preparation and credentialing of more foreign language teachers in less commonly taught languages (LCTLs) for which there is a demand for additional teachers to meet existing and expected future kindergarten through grade 12 language program needs.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2018, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional five points depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 1, and up to an additional five points depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 2. An application may receive a total of up to 10 additional points under the competitive preference priorities.

Competitive Preference Priority 1—FLAS Fellowships for Students who Demonstrate Financial Need (up to 5 points).

Applications that propose to give preference when awarding fellowships to undergraduate students, graduate students, or both, who demonstrate financial need as indicated by the students' expected family contribution, as determined under part F of title IV of the HEA. This need determination will be based on the students' financial circumstances and not on other aid.

The applicant must describe how it will ensure that all fellows who receive such preference show potential for high academic achievement based on such indices as grade point average, class ranking, or similar measures that the institution may determine.

Competitive Preference Priority 2—Academic Year FLAS Fellowships Awarded in the Less Commonly Taught Languages (up to 5 points).

Applications that propose to award at least 25 percent of academic year FLAS fellowships in modern foreign languages other than French, German, and Spanish.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations in 34 CFR parts 655, 656, and 657. (e) The notices of final priorities for these programs published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2014 (79 FR 31028, 79 FR 31031).

Areas of National Need: In accordance with section 601(c) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1121(c)), the Secretary consulted with a wide range of Federal agencies and received recommendations regarding national need for expertise in foreign language and world regions. These agencies' recommendations may be viewed on this web page: www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/index.html.

Diverse Perspectives and Areas of National Need: Section 602(e) of the HEA requires that each IHE or consortium of IHEs include the following information in NRC grant applications:

(1) An explanation of how the activities funded by the grant will reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of views and generate debate on world regions and international affairs; and

(2) A description of how the applicant will encourage government service in areas of national need, as identified by the Secretary, as well as in areas of need in the education, business, and non-profit sectors.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated NRC Available Funds: $22,743,107.

Africa ($2,370,700); Canada ($425,000); East Asia ($3,467,200); International ($1,655,000); Latin America ($3,482,017); Middle East ($3,375,000); Russia and Eastern Europe ($2,605,000); South Asia ($1,906,340); Southeast Asia ($1,898,850); and Western Europe ($1,558,000).

Estimated Range of Awards: $188,000-$270,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $215,000 per year.

Estimated Number of Awards: 100.

Estimated FLAS Available Funds: $30,343,000.

Africa ($3,357,000); Canada ($349,500); East Asia ($5,419,000); International ($2,454,000); Latin America ($4,456,500); Middle East ($3,526,500); Russia and Eastern Europe ($3,583,500); South Asia ($2,713,500); Southeast Asia ($2,449,500); and Western Europe ($2,034,000).

Estimated Range of Awards: $154,500-$351,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $202,500 per year.

Estimated Number of Awards: 105.

FLAS Fellowship Subsistence Allowances: The subsistence allowance for a graduate student academic year fellowship is $15,000; the subsistence allowance for an undergraduate student academic year fellowship is $5,000. The subsistence allowance for a summer fellowship is $2,500 for graduate and undergraduate students.

FLAS Fellowship Institutional Payments: The institutional payment for a graduate student academic year fellowship is $18,000; the institutional payment for an undergraduate student academic year fellowship is $10,000. The institutional payment for a summer fellowship is $5,000 for graduate and undergraduate students.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2019 from the list of unfunded applications from these competitions.

Project Period: Up to 48 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: IHEs or consortia of IHEs.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: These programs do not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: The NRC Program involves supplement-not-supplant funding requirements. Under 34 CFR 656.33(b)(3), grant funds may not be used to supplant funds normally used by applicants for purposes of this program.

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under the NRC Program may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: IHEs, non-profit organizations, professional organizations, or businesses. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application or that it selects through competition under procedures established by the grantee. However, a grantee under the FLAS Program may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

4. Other: (a) Reasonable and Necessary Costs: Applicants must ensure that all costs included in the proposed budget are necessary and reasonable to meet the goals and objectives of the proposed project. Any costs determined by the Secretary to be unreasonable or unnecessary will be removed from the final approved budget.

(b) Audits: (i) A non-Federal entity that expends $750,000 or more during the non-Federal entity's fiscal year in Federal awards must have a single or program-specific audit conducted for that year in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR part 200. (2 CFR 200.501(a).)

(ii) A non-Federal entity that expends less than $750,000 during the non-Federal entity's fiscal year in Federal awards is exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in 2 CFR 200.503 (Relation to Other Audit Requirements), but records must be available for review or audit by appropriate officials of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2 CFR 200.501(d).)

1. Application Submission Instructions: For information on how to submit an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

3. Funding Restrictions: We specify unallowable costs in 34 CFR 656.30(b) and 657.33. We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the priorities, selection criteria, and application requirements that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages for single institution applications, and to no more than 60 pages for consortia applications and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application narrative may be single spaced and will count toward the recommended page limit.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10-point font in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance face sheet (SF 424); the supplemental SF 424 form; Part II, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524); the detailed line item budget; Part IV, the assurances and certifications, and the response to section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act; the project abstract, the table of contents, the list of acronyms, the response to the diverse perspectives/areas of need requirements, the NRC/FLAS project profile form, and the appendices (curriculum vitae, course list, performance measure form; letters of support). However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.

5. Award Basis: In determining whether to approve a grant award and the amount of such award, the Department will consider, among other things, the applicant's performance and use of funds under a previous or existing award under any Department program (34 CFR 75.217(d)(3)(ii) and 75.233). In assessing the applicant's performance and use of funds under a previous or existing award, the Secretary will consider, among other things, the outcomes the applicant has achieved and the results of any Departmental grant monitoring, including the applicant's progress in remedying any deficiencies identified in such monitoring.

1. General: For the FY 2018 NRC and FLAS competitions, all applications will be assigned to peer review panels based on the country, thematic focus, international studies, or world region such as Africa, Asia, or the Middle East. All applicant institutions specify their respective categories in their NRC and FLAS applications. The readers who serve on the peer review panels are selected for the specialized area studies, international studies, and modern foreign language expertise needed to review, score, and rank the assigned applications in each distinct category. For the NRC and FLAS competitions, the Department will select applications for funding consideration from each distinct peer review panel based on the ranking of the applications within that panel.

2. Selection Criteria: The maximum score for all of the NRC selection criteria, taken together with the maximum number of points awarded to applicants that address the competitive preference priorities, is 175 points. The maximum score for all of the FLAS selection criteria, taken together with the maximum number of points awarded to applicants that address the competitive preference priorities, is 145 points.

The Secretary uses the following selection criteria from 34 CFR 656.21 to evaluate an NRC application for a comprehensive Center:

(a) Program planning and budget (up to 25 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which the activities for which the applicant seeks funding are of high quality and directly related to the purpose of the National Resource Centers Program;

(2) The extent to which the applicant provides a development plan or timeline demonstrating how the proposed activities will contribute to a strengthened program and whether the applicant uses its resources and personnel effectively to achieve the proposed objectives;

(3) The extent to which the costs of the proposed activities are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the program; and

(4) The long-term impact of the proposed activities on the institution's undergraduate, graduate, and professional training programs.

(b) Quality of staff resources (up to 15 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which teaching faculty and other staff are qualified for the current and proposed Center activities and training programs, are provided professional development opportunities (including overseas experience), and participate in teaching, supervising, and advising students;

(2) The adequacy of Center staffing and oversight arrangements, including outreach and administration and the extent to which faculty from a variety of departments, professional schools, and the library are involved; and

(3) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly.

(c) Impact and evaluation (up to 30 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which the Center's activities and training programs have a significant impact on the university, community, region, and the Nation as shown through indices such as enrollments, graduate placement data, participation rates for events, and usage of Center resources; and the extent to which the applicant supplies a clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and treatment of eligible project participants who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly;

(2) The extent to which the applicant provides an evaluation plan that is comprehensive and objective and that will produce quantifiable, outcome-measure-oriented data; and the extent to which recent evaluations have been used to improve the applicant's program;

(3) The degree to which activities of the Center address national needs, and generate information for and disseminate information to the public; and

(4) The applicant's record of placing students into post-graduate employment, education, or training in areas of national need and the applicant's stated efforts to increase the number of such students that go into such placements.

(d) Commitment to the subject area on which the Center focuses (up to 10 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which the institution provides financial and other support to the operation of the Center, teaching staff for the Center's subject area, library resources, linkages with institutions abroad, outreach activities, and qualified students in fields related to the Center.

(e) Strength of library (up to 10 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The strength of the institution's library holdings (both print and non-print, English and foreign language) in the subject area and at the educational levels (graduate, professional, undergraduate) on which the Center focuses; and the extent to which the institution provides financial support for the acquisition of library materials and for library staff in the subject area of the Center; and

(2) The extent to which research materials at other institutions are available to students through cooperative arrangements with other libraries or on-line databases and the extent to which teachers, students, and faculty from other institutions are able to access the library's holdings.

(f) Quality of the Center's non-language instructional program (up to 20 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The quality and extent of the Center's course offerings in a variety of disciplines, including the extent to which courses in the Center's subject matter are available in the institution's professional schools;

(2) The extent to which the Center offers depth of specialized course coverage in one or more disciplines of the Center's subject area;

(3) The extent to which the institution employs a sufficient number of teaching faculty to enable the Center to carry out its purposes and the extent to which instructional assistants are provided with pedagogy training; and

(4) The extent to which interdisciplinary courses are offered for undergraduate and graduate students.

(g) Quality of the Center's language instructional program (up to 20 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which the Center provides instruction in the languages of the Center's subject area and the extent to which students enroll in the study of the languages of the subject area through programs or instruction offered by the Center or other providers;

(2) The extent to which the Center provides three or more levels of language training and the extent to which courses in disciplines other than language, linguistics, and literature are offered in appropriate foreign languages;

(3) Whether sufficient numbers of language faculty are available to teach the languages and levels of instruction described in the application and the extent to which language teaching staff (including faculty and instructional assistants) have been exposed to current language pedagogy training appropriate for performance-based teaching; and

(4) The quality of the language program as measured by the performance-based instruction being used or developed, the adequacy of resources for language teaching and practice, and language proficiency requirements.

(h) Quality of curriculum design (up to 15 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which the Center's curriculum has incorporated undergraduate instruction in the applicant's area or topic of specialization into baccalaureate degree programs (for example, major, minor, or certificate programs) and the extent to which these programs and their requirements (including language requirements) are appropriate for a Center in this subject area and will result in an undergraduate training program of high quality;

(2) The extent to which the Center's curriculum provides training options for graduate students from a variety of disciplines and professional fields and the extent to which these programs and their requirements (including language requirements) are appropriate for a Center in this subject area and result in graduate training programs of high quality; and

(3) The extent to which the Center provides academic and career advising services for students; the extent to which the Center has established formal arrangements for students to conduct research or study abroad and the extent to which these arrangements are used; and the extent to which the institution facilitates student access to other institutions' study abroad and summer language programs.

(i) Outreach activities (up to 20 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which the Center demonstrates a significant and measurable regional and national impact of, and faculty and professional school involvement in, domestic outreach activities that involve—

(1) Elementary and secondary schools;

(2) Postsecondary institutions; and

(3) Business, media, and the general public.

(j) Degree to which priorities are served (up to 10 points). If, under the provisions of § 656.23, the Secretary establishes competitive priorities for Centers, the Secretary considers the degree to which those priorities are being served.

The Secretary uses the following selection criteria from 34 CFR 656.22 to evaluate an NRC application for an undergraduate Center:

(a) Program planning and budget (up to 25 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which the activities for which the applicant seeks funding are of high quality and directly related to the purpose of the National Resource Centers Program;

(2) The extent to which the applicant provides a development plan or timeline demonstrating how the proposed activities will contribute to a strengthened program and whether the applicant uses its resources and personnel effectively to achieve the proposed objectives;

(3) The extent to which the costs of the proposed activities are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the program; and

(4) The long-term impact of the proposed activities on the institution's undergraduate training program.

(b) Quality of staff resources (up to 15 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which teaching faculty and other staff are qualified for the current and proposed Center activities and training programs, are provided professional development opportunities (including overseas experience), and participate in teaching, supervising, and advising students;

(2) The adequacy of Center staffing and oversight arrangements, including outreach and administration and the extent to which faculty from a variety of departments, professional schools, and the library are involved; and

(3) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly.

(c) Impact and evaluation (up to 30 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which the Center's activities and training programs have a significant impact on the university, community, region, and the Nation as shown through indices such as enrollments, graduate placement data, participation rates for events, and usage of Center resources; the extent to which students matriculate into advanced language and area or international studies programs or related professional programs; and the extent to which the applicant supplies a clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and treatment of eligible project participants who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly;

(2) The extent to which the applicant provides an evaluation plan that is comprehensive and objective and that will produce quantifiable, outcome-measure-oriented data; and the extent to which recent evaluations have been used to improve the applicant's program;

(3) The degree to which activities of the Center address national needs, and generate information for and disseminate information to the public; and

(4) The applicant's record of placing students into post-graduate employment, education, or training in areas of national need and the applicant's stated efforts to increase the number of such students that go into such placements.

(d) Commitment to the subject area on which the Center focuses (up to 10 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which the institution provides financial and other support to the operation of the Center, teaching staff for the Center's subject area, library resources, linkages with institutions abroad, outreach activities, and qualified students in fields related to the Center.

(e) Strength of library (up to 10 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The strength of the institution's library holdings (both print and non-print, English and foreign language) in the subject area and at the educational levels (graduate, professional, undergraduate) on which the Center focuses; and the extent to which the institution provides financial support for the acquisition of library materials and for library staff in the subject area of the Center; and

(2) The extent to which research materials at other institutions are available to students through cooperative arrangements with other libraries or on-line databases and the extent to which teachers, students, and faculty from other institutions are able to access the library's holdings.

(f) Quality of the Center's non-language instructional program (up to 20 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The quality and extent of the Center's course offerings in a variety of disciplines;

(2) The extent to which the Center offers depth of specialized course coverage in one or more disciplines of the Center's subject area;

(3) The extent to which the institution employs a sufficient number of teaching faculty to enable the Center to carry out its purposes and the extent to which instructional assistants are provided with pedagogy training; and

(4) The extent to which interdisciplinary courses are offered for undergraduate students.

(g) Quality of the Center's language instructional program (up to 20 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which the Center provides instruction in the languages of the Center's subject area and the extent to which students enroll in the study of the languages of the subject area through programs offered by the Center or other providers;

(2) The extent to which the Center provides three or more levels of language training and the extent to which courses in disciplines other than language, linguistics, and literature are offered in appropriate foreign languages;

(3) Whether sufficient numbers of language faculty are available to teach the languages and levels of instruction described in the application and the extent to which language teaching staff (including faculty and instructional assistants) have been exposed to current language pedagogy training appropriate for performance-based teaching; and

(4) The quality of the language program as measured by the performance-based instruction being used or developed, the adequacy of resources for language teaching and practice, and language proficiency requirements.

(h) Quality of curriculum design (up to 15 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which the Center's curriculum has incorporated undergraduate instruction in the applicant's area or topic of specialization into baccalaureate degree programs (for example, major, minor, or certificate programs) and the extent to which these programs and their requirements (including language requirements) are appropriate for a Center in this subject area and will result in an undergraduate training program of high quality; and

(2) The extent to which the Center provides academic and career advising services for students; the extent to which the Center has established formal arrangements for students to conduct research or study abroad and the extent to which these arrangements are used; and the extent to which the institution facilitates student access to other institutions' study abroad and summer language programs.

(i) Outreach activities (up to 20 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which the Center demonstrates a significant and measurable regional and national impact of, and faculty and professional school involvement in, domestic outreach activities that involve—

(1) Elementary and secondary schools;

(2) Postsecondary institutions; and

(3) Business, media and the general public.

(j) Degree to which priorities are served (up to 10 points). If, under the provisions of § 656.23, the Secretary establishes competitive priorities for Centers, the Secretary considers the degree to which those priorities are being served.

The Secretary uses the following selection criteria from 34 CFR 657.21 to evaluate an institutional application for an allocation of FLAS fellowships:

(a) Quality of staff resources (up to 15 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which teaching faculty and other staff are qualified for the current and proposed activities and training programs, are provided professional development opportunities (including overseas experience), and participate in teaching, supervising, and advising students;

(2) The adequacy of applicant staffing and oversight arrangements and the extent to which faculty from a variety of departments, professional schools, and the library are involved; and

(3) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly.

(b) Impact and evaluation (up to 25 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which the applicant's activities and training programs have contributed to an improved supply of specialists on the program's subject as shown through indices such as undergraduate and graduate enrollments and placement data; and the extent to which the applicant supplies a clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and treatment of eligible project participants who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly;

(2) The extent to which the applicant provides an evaluation plan that is comprehensive and objective and that will produce quantifiable, outcome-measure-oriented data; and the extent to which recent evaluations have been used to improve the applicant's program;

(3) The degree to which fellowships awarded by the applicant address national needs; and

(4) The applicant's record of placing students into post-graduate employment, education, or training in areas of national need and the applicant's stated efforts to increase the number of such students that go into such placements.

(c) Commitment to the subject area on which the applicant or program focuses (up to 10 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which the institution provides financial and other support to the operation of the applicant, teaching staff for the applicant's subject area, library resources, and linkages with institutions abroad; and

(2) The extent to which the institution provides financial support to students in fields related to the applicant's teaching program.

(d) Strength of library (up to 10 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The strength of the institution's library holdings (both print and non-print, English and foreign language) for students; and the extent to which the institution provides financial support for the acquisition of library materials and for library staff in the subject area of the applicant; and

(2) The extent to which research materials at other institutions are available to students through cooperative arrangements with other libraries or on-line databases.

(e) Quality of the applicant's non-language instructional program (up to 20 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The quality and extent of the applicant's course offerings in a variety of disciplines, including the extent to which courses in the applicant's subject matter are available in the institution's professional schools;

(2) The extent to which the applicant offers depth of specialized course coverage in one or more disciplines on the applicant's subject area;

(3) The extent to which the institution employs a sufficient number of teaching faculty to enable the applicant to carry out its purposes and the extent to which instructional assistants are provided with pedagogy training; and

(4) The extent to which interdisciplinary courses are offered for students.

(f) Quality of the applicant's language instructional program (up to 20 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which the applicant provides instruction in the languages of the applicant's subject area and the extent to which students enroll in the study of the languages of the subject area through programs or instruction offered by the applicant or other providers;

(2) The extent to which the applicant provides three or more levels of language training and the extent to which courses in disciplines other than language, linguistics, and literature are offered in appropriate foreign languages;

(3) Whether sufficient numbers of language faculty are available to teach the languages and levels of instruction described in the application and the extent to which language teaching staff (including faculty and instructional assistants) have been exposed to current language pedagogy training appropriate for performance-based teaching; and

(4) The quality of the language program as measured by the performance-based instruction being used or developed, the adequacy of resources for language teaching and practice, and language proficiency requirements.

(g) Quality of curriculum design (up to 20 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The extent to which the applicant's curriculum provides training options for students from a variety of disciplines and professional fields and the extent to which these programs and their requirements (including language requirements) are appropriate for an applicant in this subject area and result in graduate training programs of high quality;

(2) The extent to which the applicant provides academic and career advising services for students; and

(3) The extent to which the applicant has established formal arrangements for students to conduct research or study abroad and the extent to which these arrangements are used; and the extent to which the institution facilitates student access to other institutions' study abroad and summer language programs.

(h) Foreign language and area studies fellowships awardee selection procedures (up to 15 points). The Secretary reviews each application to determine whether the selection plan is of high quality, showing how awards will be advertised, how students apply, what selection criteria are used, who selects the fellows, when each step will take place, and how the process will result in awards being made to correspond to any announced priorities.

(i) Priorities (up to 10 points). If one or more competitive priorities have been established under § 657.22, the Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the extent to which the Center or program meets these priorities.

3. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under these programs the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements, please refer to 2 CFR part 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170, should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

Performance reports for the NRC Program and the FLAS Program must be submitted electronically into the Office of International and Foreign Language Education web-based reporting system, International Resource Information System (IRIS). For information about IRIS and to view the reporting instructions, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. If a grantee is provided additional funding for this purpose, the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

5. Performance Measures: (a) Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the following measures will be used by the Department to evaluate the success of the NRC Program:

1. Percentage of priority languages defined by the Secretary of Education taught at NRCs.

2. Percentage of NRC grants teaching intermediate or advanced courses in priority languages as defined by the Secretary of Education.

3. Percentage of NRCs that increased the number of intermediate or advanced level language courses in the priority and/or LCTLs during the course of the grant period.

4. Percentage of NRCs that increased the number of certificate, minor, or major degree programs in the priority and/or LCTLs, area studies, or international studies during the course of the four-year grant period.

5. Percentage of less and least commonly taught languages as defined by the Secretary of Education taught at title VI NRCs.

6. Cost per NRC that increased the number of intermediate or advanced level language courses in the priority and/or LCTLs during the course of the grant period.

(b) The following measures will be used by the Department to evaluate the success of the FLAS Program:

1. Percentage of FLAS-graduated fellows who secured employment that utilizes their foreign language and area studies skills within eight years after graduation, based on the FLAS tracking survey.

2. Percentage of FLAS master's and doctoral graduates who studied priority languages as defined by the Secretary of Education.

3. Percentage of FLAS fellows who increased their foreign language reading, writing, and/or listening/speaking scores by at least one proficiency level.

The information provided by grantees in their performance reports submitted via IRIS will be the source of data for these measures. Reporting screens for institutions can be viewed at:

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact persons 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. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations 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 PDF. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov.

Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, disposal, and/or the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. If your comments contain any information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the Peer Review Leader listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before submitting your comments.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

You may participate in this preparatory meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0314 in the subject line on the first page of your request.

1. Written comments. The Agency encourages written comments be submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES and Unit I.B., on or before July 23, 2018, to provide the letter peer reviewers the time necessary to consider and review the written comments. Though the peer reviewers may not be able to fully consider written comments submitted after July 23, 2018, EPA will consider all comments submitted on or before August 17, 2018.

2. Oral comments. The Agency encourages each individual or group wishing to present brief oral comments to the letter peer reviewers during the preparatory meeting to submit their request to the peer review leader listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before June 21, 2018, in order to be included on the preparatory meeting agenda. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment. Oral comments are limited to approximately 5 minutes due to the time constraints of the preparatory meeting.

Section 6(h) of the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) directs EPA to issue regulations under 6(a) for certain Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) chemical substances that were identified in EPA's TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments: 2014 update. The chemicals that were ranked high or moderate for either persistence and bioaccumulation, are present on the TSCA 2014 workplan chemical list that are not metals, that do not have problem formulation completed, do not have a review under section 5, and do not have a consent agreement under section 4 are the following five chemicals: Decabromodiphenyl ethers (DECA); Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD); Pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP); Phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1) (PIP3/ITPP); and 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl) phenol (2, 4, 6 TRIS).

No risk evaluation is required for these PBT chemicals. EPA has drafted an Exposure and Use Assessment and a Human Health and Environmental Hazard Summary, in response to the TSCA section 6(h) requirements to summarize conclusions of toxicity and whether there is likely exposure to these PBT chemicals. These documents contain the following components:

• Chemistry, physical-chemical properties and expected transport and partitioning.

• Characterization of manufacture (including import), processing, uses and potential sources of exposure.

• Summary of available monitoring data, concentrations and doses.

• Characterization of trends in releases/exposures over time.

• Summary of environmental hazard (written and tabular summaries).

• Summary of human health hazard (written and tabular summaries).

• Strategy for identifying environmental hazard summary information.

• Strategy for identifying human health summary information.

• Supplemental Files that identify how environmental information was searched, screened, and evaluated.

The Agency has organized letter peer reviews for the Exposure and Use Assessment and the Human Health and Environmental Hazard Summary. The June 25, 2018 preparatory meeting will be held by teleconference and webcast only. During the preparatory meeting, the individual letter peer reviewers will have the opportunity to comment on and ask questions regarding the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions. Subsequent to this preparatory meeting, final charge questions will be provided for use as the letter peer reviewers complete their individual reviews.

EPA's background papers, related supporting materials, and charge/questions for these letter peer reviews will be available in the public docket (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0314) on June 18, 2018. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents and public comments as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available in the public docket at http://www.regulations.gov and on the TSCA Peer Review website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:

1. Title: Interagency Supervisory Guidance for the Supervisory Review Process of Capital Adequacy (Pillar 2) Related to the Implementation of the Basel II Advanced Capital Framework.

OMB Number: 3064-0165.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and certain subsidiaries of these entities.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: There has been no change in the method or substance of this information collection. The number of institutions subject to the record keeping requirements has decreased from eight (8) to two (2). In 2008 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the FDIC issued a supervisory guidance document related to the supervisory review process of capital adequacy (Pillar 2) in connection with the implementation of the Basel II Advanced Capital Framework.1 Sections 37, 41, 43, and 46 of the guidance include possible information collections. Section 37 provides that banks should state clearly the definition of capital used in any aspect of its internal capital adequacy assessment process (ICAAP) and document any changes in the internal definition of capital. Section 41 provides that banks should maintain thorough documentation of its ICAAP. Section 43 specifies that the board of directors should approve the bank's ICAAP, review it on a regular basis and approve any changes. Section 46 recommends that boards of directors periodically review the assessment of overall capital adequacy and analyze how measures of internal capital adequacy compare with other capital measures such as regulatory or accounting.

2. Title: Credit Risk Retention.

OMB Number: 3064-0183.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Insured state non-member banks, insured state branches of foreign banks, state savings associations and certain subsidiaries of these entities.

Burden Estimate:

There has been no change in the method or substance of this information collection. The above burden estimate is derived from FDIC's estimate that there are currently approximately 1,400 annual offerings subject to the Credit Risk Retention rule (12 CFR part 373). The methodology used to estimate burden is fully detailed in the FDIC's supporting statement for this information collection (3064-0183) available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201501-3064-002.

General Description of Collection: This information collection request relates to the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements of 12 CFR part 373 (the Credit Risk Retention Rule) which implements section 15G of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,2 added by section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 3 (Section 941). The Credit Risk Retention Rule was jointly issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), the Federal Reserve Board (“Board”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and, with respect to the portions of the Rule addressing the securitization of residential mortgages, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).

Section 941 requires the Board, the FDIC, the OCC (collectively, the “Federal banking agencies”), the Commission and, in the case of the securitization of any “residential mortgage asset,” together with HUD and FHFA, to jointly prescribe regulations that (i) require a securitizer to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any asset that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security (“ABS”), transfers, sells or conveys to a third party, and (ii) prohibit a securitizer from directly or indirectly hedging or otherwise transferring the credit risk that the securitizer is required to retain under section 941 and the agencies' implementing rules.

The Credit Risk Retention Rule provides a menu of credit risk retention options from which securitizers can choose and sets out the standards, including disclosure and recordkeeping requirements, for each option; identifies the eligibility criteria, including certification and disclosure requirements, that must be met for asset-backed securities (ABS) offerings to qualify for certain exemptions; specifies the underwriting standards for commercial real estate (CRE) loans, commercial loans and automobile loans, as well as disclosure, certification and recordkeeping requirements, that must be met for ABS issuances collateralized by such loans to qualify for reduced credit risk retention; and sets forth the circumstances under which retention obligations may be allocated by sponsors to originators, including disclosure and monitoring requirements. The recordkeeping requirements relate primarily to (i) the adoption and maintenance of various policies and procedures to ensure and monitor compliance with regulatory requirements and (ii) certifications, including as to the effectiveness of internal supervisory controls. The required disclosures for each risk retention option are intended to provide investors with material information concerning the sponsor's retained interest in a securitization transaction (e.g., the amount, form and nature of the retained interest, material assumptions and methodology, representations and warranties). The agencies believe that the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements will enhance market discipline, help ensure the quality of the assets underlying a securitization, and assist investors in evaluating transactions.

3. Title: Disclosure Requirements Associated with the Supplementary Leverage Ratio.

OMB Number: 3064-0196.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations that are subject to the FDIC's advanced approaches risk-based capital rules.

Burden Estimate:

There has been no change in the method or substance of this information collection. The number of institutions subject to the disclosure requirements has decreased from eight (8) to two (2).

General Description of Collection: The supplementary leverage ratio regulations strengthen the definition of total leverage exposure and improve the measure of a banking organization's on- and off-balance sheet exposures. The rules are generally consistent with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's 2014 revisions and promote consistency in the calculation of this ratio across jurisdictions. All banking organizations that are subject to the advanced approaches risk-based capital rules 4 are required to disclose their supplementary leverage ratios.5 Advanced approaches banking organizations must report their supplementary leverage ratios on the applicable regulatory reports. The calculation and disclosure requirements for the supplementary leverage ratio in the federal banking agencies' regulatory capital rules are generally consistent with international standards published by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. These disclosures enhance the transparency and consistency of reporting requirements for the supplementary leverage ratio by all internationally active organizations.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burdens of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

GSA has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of the Federal Acquisition Service's (FAS's) Stock, Special Order, and Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Programs. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of various types of FAS contracts. Individual solicitations and resulting contracts may impose unique information collection and reporting requirements on contractors, not required by regulation, but necessary to evaluate particular program accomplishments and measure success in meeting program objectives.

As such, the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) 516.506, Solicitation provision and clauses, specifically directs contracting officers to insert 552.216-72, Placement of Orders, and 552.216-73, Ordering Information, when the contract authorizes FAS and other activities to issue delivery or task orders. These clauses include information reporting requirements for Offerors to receive electronic orders through computer-to-computer Electronic Data Interchange (EDI).

Respondents: 18,590.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 18,590.

Hours per Response: .25.

Total Burden Hours: 4,648.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755.

Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0248, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses, Placement of Orders Clause, and Ordering Information Clause, in all correspondence.

Background

The World War One Centennial Commission was established by Public Law 112-272 (as amended), as a commission to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of World War I, to provide for the designation of memorials to the service of members of the United States Armed Forces in World War I, and for other purposes. Under this authority, the Committee will plan, develop, and execute programs, projects, and activities to commemorate the centennial of World War I, encourage private organizations and State and local governments to organize and participate in activities commemorating the centennial of World War I, facilitate and coordinate activities throughout the United States relating to the centennial of World War I, serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about events and plans for the centennial of World War I, and develop recommendations for Congress and the President for commemorating the centennial of World War I.

This information collection requires information necessary for prime applicants and recipients, excepting individuals, of Federal grants to register in the System for Award Management (SAM) and maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which they have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by an agency pursuant to 2 CFR Subtitle A, Chapter I, and part 25 (75 FR 55673 as amended at 79 FR 75879). 2 CFR Subtitle A, Chapter I, and part 25 designates SAM as the governmentwide repository for standard information about applicants and recipients. 2 CFR Subtitle A, Chapter II, and part 200 (80 FR 43308) also designates SAM as the system recipients are required to report certain civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings if they meet certain conditions. Further, Federal awarding agencies are required to check SAM for pre-award purposes in accordance with 2 CFR part 180. This information collection requires that all prime grant awardees, subject to the requirements in 2 CFR Subtitle A, Chapter I, and part 25 register and maintain their registration in SAM.

Pursuant to 2 CFR Subtitle A, Chapter II, part 200, Subpart C, Section 200.208 Certifications and representations, Federal agencies are authorized to require non-Federal entities to submit certifications and representations required by Federal statutes, or regulations on an annual basis. Currently, most Federal agencies require non-Federal entities to submit certifications with each Federal assistance application by use of the Assurances for Non-Construction Programs (SF-424B) and on an annual basis thereafter. To streamline this data collection and to reduce burden, OMB, in conjunction with the Federal assistance community, developed standard governmentwide certifications and representations to be certified by the non-Federal entity when registering in SAM. In Fiscal Year 2019, OMB will reemphasize that SAM is the repository for standard information about applicants and recipients and that the standard governmentwide certifications and representations are to be certified within SAM at the time of registration and/or registration renewal should meet the need of governmentwide certifications and representations. This will reduce the unnecessary, duplicative practice of agencies requesting certifications and representations with the submission of each application and lead to phasing out the use of the SF-424B, thereby decreasing the burden level of Federal grant recipients and Federal agencies.

Respondents: 143,334.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Total Annual Responses: 143,334.

Hours per Response: 2.5.

Total Burden Hours: 358,335.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the System for Award Management Registration Requirements for Prime Grant Recipients, whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents in hard-copy or electronic format. Hard copy: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0290, System for Award Management Registration Requirements for Prime Grant Recipients, in all correspondence.