Federal Register Vol. 83, No.133,

If other persons who plan to attend the briefings require other accommodations, please contact Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] or 303-866-1040 at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the briefings.

Time will be set aside at the end of meeting 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 August 19, 2018. Written comments may be mailed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected].

Records and documents discussed during the briefings will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=281 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from these briefings may also be made available by calling the designated federal officer. 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 Commission at the above phone number, email or street address.

Background

On January 8, 2002, we published the Order on certain folding gift boxes from China.1 On February 1, 2018, we published the notice of initiation of the third sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 Because domestic interested parties submitted a complete and adequate response, but respondent interested parties did not participate in the sunset review, we conducted the sunset review on an expedited basis, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2).3 As a result of this expedited sunset review, we determined that revocation of the Order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail should the order be revoked, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act.4 On June 29, 2018, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.5

The products covered by the Order are certain folding gift boxes. Folding gift boxes are a type of folding or knock-down carton manufactured from paper or paperboard. Folding gift boxes are produced from a variety of recycled and virgin paper or paperboard materials, including, but not limited to, clay-coated paper or paperboard and kraft (bleached or unbleached) paper or paperboard. The scope of the Order excludes gift boxes manufactured from paper or paperboard of a thickness of more than 0.8 millimeters, corrugated paperboard, or paper mache. The scope also excludes those gift boxes for which no side of the box, when assembled, is at least nine inches in length.

Folding gift boxes included in the scope are typically decorated with a holiday motif using various processes, including printing, embossing, debossing, and foil stamping, but may also be plain white or printed with a single color. The subject merchandise includes folding gift boxes, with or without handles, whether finished or unfinished, and whether in one-piece or multi-piece configuration. One-piece gift boxes are die-cut or otherwise formed so that the top, bottom, and sides form a single, contiguous unit. Two-piece gift boxes are those with a folded bottom and a folded top as separate pieces. Folding gift boxes are generally packaged in shrink-wrap, cellophane, or other packaging materials, in single or multi-box packs for sale to the retail customer. The scope excludes folding gift boxes that have a retailer's name, logo, trademark or similar company information printed prominently on the box's top exterior (such folding gift boxes are often known as “not-for-resale” gift boxes or “give-away” gift boxes and may be provided by department and specialty stores at no charge to their retail customers). The scope of the Order also excludes folding gift boxes where both the outside of the box is a single color and the box is not packaged in shrink-wrap, cellophane, other resin-based packaging films, or paperboard.

Imports of the subject merchandise are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 4819.20.0040 and 4819.50.4060. These subheadings also cover products that are outside the scope of the Order. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the Order is dispositive.

As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the Order. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

The effective date of the continuation of the Order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year review of this order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation notice.

This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

Background

On August 28, 2000, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD order on tin mill products from Japan.1 On May 1, 2017, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the third sunset review of the AD order on tin mill products from Japan, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 Commerce conducted this sunset review on an expedited basis, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) because it received a complete, timely, and adequate response from a domestic interested party but no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. As a result of the review, Commerce determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.3 Commerce, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail should the AD order be revoked. On June 25, 2018, the ITC published notice of its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the AD order on tin mill products from Japan would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.4

The products covered by the antidumping duty order are tin mill flat-rolled products that are coated or plated with tin, chromium or chromium oxides. Flat-rolled steel products coated with tin are known as tin plate. Flat-rolled steel products coated with chromium or chromium oxides are known as tin-free steel or electrolytic chromium-coated steel. The merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), under HTSUS subheadings 7210.11.0000, 7210.12.0000, 7210.50.0000, 7212.10.0000, and 7212.50.0000 if of non-alloy steel and under HTSUS subheadings 7225.99.0090, and 7226.99.0180 if of alloy steel.

The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order remains dispositive.5

As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the AD order on tin mill products from Japan.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year sunset review of the order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

This five-year sunset review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

Background

The mandatory respondents in this investigation are Shanxi Xuanshi Industrial Group Co., Ltd. (Shanxi Xuanshi), Shijiazhuang Chengmei Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Shijiazhuang Chengmei), and Wor-Biz International Trading Co., Ltd. (Anhui) (Wor-Biz). On December 19, 2017, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination of the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of cast iron soil pipes from China.1 In the Preliminary Determination, Commerce aligned the final CVD determination with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4).

On January 23, 2018, Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. In accordance with Commerce's practice, if the new deadline falls on a non-business day, the deadline will become the next business day. Accordingly, the deadline for the final determination of this investigation was revised to July 5, 2018.2 On April 19, 2018, Commerce released its Post-Preliminary Analysis. 3

A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by interested parties for this final determination, can be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum issued concurrently with this notice.4 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

The products covered by this investigation are cast iron soil pipe fittings from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation” in Appendix I of this notice. For this final determination, Commerce has issued a scope memorandum addressing interested parties” comments regarding scope issues presented in the case briefs and in subsequent scope comments.5 Commerce has determined to modify the scope of the investigation to include two additional subheadings of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule under which subject merchandise may enter. Commerce has also provided a clarification in the Final Scope Memorandum. For further discussion, see Commerce's Final Scope Memorandum. The scope in Appendix I reflects the final scope language.

The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II.

Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy, i.e. , a financial contribution by an “authority” that confers a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.6 For a full description of the methodology underlying our final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In making these findings, Commerce relied, in part, on facts otherwise available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to Commerce's requests for information, Commerce drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.7 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from the interested parties, our findings at verification, and the minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents” subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 705(c)(l)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated rates for Shanxi Xuanshi and Wor-Biz, producers/exporters of subject merchandise selected for individual examination in this investigation. With regard to Shijiazhuang Chengmei, for the reasons described in the Preliminary Determination, Commerce assigned a rate based entirely on adverse facts available pursuant to section 776 of the Act. No interested party commented on our preliminary decision, and so for purposes of this final determination, we continue to assign Shijiazhuang Chengmei a rate based entirely on AFA.

Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, we calculated individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for Shanxi Xuanshi and Wor-Biz that are not zero, de minimis , or based entirely on facts otherwise available. As a result, we calculated the all-others rate based on a weighted average of the individual estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents using each company's publicly ranged values for the merchandise under consideration.8

Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding, for this final determination, within five days of the date of publication of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register . In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after April 18, 2018, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from December 19, 2017, through April 17, 2018.

If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of soil pipe fittings from China no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.

In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

Background

In accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), on April 13, 2018, Commerce published its final results in the countervailing duty administrative review of certain new phenumatic off-the-road tires from China.1 Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. and its affiliate, Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd. (collectively, Guizhou Tyre) timely filed a ministerial error allegation on April 23, 2018, claiming Commerce had improperly failed to include revised land values accepted at verification as minor corrections in the final calculations.2

On May 2, 2018, Guizhou Tyre filed its complaint with the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) challenging the Final Results. On June 19, 2018, the United States sought leave from the CIT to address the ministerial error allegation and a related issue concerning a separate minor correction accepted at verification. On June 20, 2018, the court granted the United States' request.

The products covered by the scope are new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road (OTR) and off-highway use. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.70.0010, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.80.1020, 4011.90.10, 4011.70.0050, 4011.80.1010, 4011.80.1020, 4011.80.2010, 4011.80.2020, 4011.80.8010, and 4011.80.8020. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope, which is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying the Final Results, is dispositive.3

Section 751(h) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(f) defines a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” Commerce has now determined that Guizhou Tyre's alleged error is a ministerial error under section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f). Specifically, we find that not incorporating revised values regarding the total price paid for certain parcels of land, which were accepted as minor corrections and verified at verification, in our final calculations is an inadvertent omission within the meaning of “ministerial error.” We have also determined that we made an additional ministerial error by inadvertently omitting revised loan interest payment data submitted by Guizhou Tyre as a minor correction at verification. To correct these errors, we are amending Guizhou Tyre's subsidy rate for its land-use rights program rate and its subsidy rate for its government policy lending program. See the Response to Ministerial Error Allegations for the revised program rates.4 These changes result in a change to the net subsidy rate for Guizhou Tyre. Similarly, because the subsidy rate for the non-selected companies in Final Results 5  was based on Guizhou Tyre's net subsidy rate, these changes also result in a change to the subsidy rate for the non-selected companies. For a complete discussion of the errors at issue, see the Response to Ministerial Error Allegations. The revised net subsidy rates are provided below.

As a result of correcting the ministerial errors, we determine that Guizhou Tyre's, Xuzhou Xugong's and the non-selected companies' total net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31 2015, are as follows:

Normally Commerce would issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of the amended final results of review. However, as noted above, Guizhou Tyre has filed its complaint with the CIT challenging the Final Results on May 8, 2018, and on May 8, and June 1, 2018, the U.S. Court of International Trade preliminarily enjoined liquidation of certain entries that are subject to the Final Results. 7 Accordingly, Commerce will not instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on those enjoined entries pending resolution of the associated litigation.

Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties, in the amount shown above for the companies listed above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 13, 2017, the date of publication of the Final Results. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We will disclose the calculations performed for these amended final results to interested parties within five business days of the date of the publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e)

On June 18, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published a notice to rescind the antidumping administrative review for Flex Middle East FZE (Flex) covering the period November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2017.1 The Partial Rescission Notice contained an inadvertent error in the assessment section of the notice, specifically the Partial Rescission Notice did not cite the correct period for which Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties. The corrected assessment section appears below.

Commerce will instruct U.S. CBP to assess anti-dumping duties on all appropriate entries. Subject merchandise of Flex will be assessed antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2017, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

I. Abstract

The Marine Mammal Protection Act requires any commercial fisherman operating in Category I and II fisheries to register for a certificate of authorization that will allow the fisherman to take marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. Category I and II fisheries are those identified by NOAA as having either frequent or occasional takings of marine mammals. All states have integrated the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) registration process into the existing state fishery registration process and vessel owners do not need to file a separate federal registration. If applicable, vessel owners will be notified of this simplified registration process when they apply for their state or Federal permit or license.

Fishermen have their information imported directly into the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (MMAP) from their state. If they do not have a state or Federal fishery permit or license, they can request an MMAP registration form from their regional NMFS office and mail in the registration form.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0293.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.

Estimated Time per Response: Initial registration 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 150.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $15,300 in recordkeeping/reporting costs and application fees.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) 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).

On March 5, 2018, NMFS received a request from Kitsap Transit for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal associated with upgrades to the Annapolis Ferry Terminal, Puget Sound, Washington. Kitsap Transit submitted a revised application on May 3, 2018 which NMFS deemed adequate and complete. Pile driving and removal will take a maximum of 17 days. No serious injury or mortality is expected to occur or is authorized from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

On May 16, 2018, NMFS published its proposed IHA in the Federal Register for public comment (83 FR 22624). NMFS has issued an IHA to Kitsap Transit for the take, by Level A and B harassment, of harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena vomerina).

Kitsap Transit is proposing to upgrade the existing dock at its Annapolis Ferry Terminal to accommodate larger vessels by extending the dock into deeper water and bring the terminal into compliance with American Disability Act (ADA) accessibility standards. The project includes removing 10 existing concrete and steel piles that support the existing pier and float and installing 12 new steel piles to support updated structures. Piles will be removed using a vibratory hammer and new piles will be installed using a vibratory and, if necessary, an impact hammer. The project is anticipated to take 8 weeks to complete; however, Kitsap Transit anticipates it will take a maximum of 17 days to complete in-water pile driving activities.

The project would occur for eight weeks between October 1, 2018 and September 30, 2019 with the exception of March 3, 2019 through July 1, 2019 to protect salmonids and surf smelt. Pile removal has been conservatively estimated to occur at a rate of 2 piles removed per day, which would require 5 days to remove 10 piles. Pile installation was conservatively estimated to occur at a rate of 1 pile per day, which would require 12 days to install 12 piles. In total, there would be 17 days (maximum) of pile driving. No in-water pile driving will be conducted between

The Annapolis Ferry Terminal is located in Sinclair Inlet across from Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) Bremerton and southwest of Bainbridge Island. Potential areas ensonified during pile driving include Sinclair Inlet and portions of Port Washington Narrows, Port Orchard Passage and Rich Passage. These waterbodies range up to 130 feet in depth and substrates include silt/mud, sand, gravel, cobbles and rock outcrops. The terminal itself and parking area contains a hardened shoreline comprised of sheet piles.

A detailed description of the specified activity is provided in our notice of proposed IHA (83 FR 22624; May 16, 2018). Please refer to that document for full detail. We provide a summary here.

The Annapolis Ferry Terminal was designed to have a useful life of 40 years and is now 34 years old. Kitsap Transit has determined upgrades are necessary to meet ADA requirements and accommodate larger ferry vessels. To make the upgrades, Kitsap Transit is removing a portion of the existing pier, installing a longer gangway, removing the existing float and installing a larger float in deeper water. This work requires removing 10 existing piles and installing 12 new piles.

Piles would be removed with a vibratory hammer. Piles would be installed using a vibratory hammer to refusal and then “proofed” with an impact hammer, if necessary. The maximum amount of time spent removing 10 piles would be 5 days while the maximum amount of time installing 12 piles would be 12 days for a total of 17 days. The types of piles included in the project and schedule, are included in Table 1.

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

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA was published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2018 (83 FR 22624). During the 30-day public comment period, the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) submitted a letter, providing comments as described below.

Comment 1: The Commission made a general comment recommending NMFS more thoroughly review applications before deeming one adequate and complete and better evaluate Level A harassment zones and take numbers prior to publishing a proposed authorization.

NMFS Response: MMPA implementing regulations provide a list of 14 informational elements that must be included in an IHA application before NMFS can determine it is adequate and complete. For the subject IHA, the application contained all the required information. With respect to Level A harassment distances and take numbers, the public review process provides the Commission opportunity to comment on the application and our proposal and we consider all public comments prior to issuance of the IHA. The Level A harassment zones for this project are relatively small; however, as described in the Estimated Take section below, we have included authorization of a small number of takes by Level A harassment, as recommended by the Commission, in case animals are undetected before Kitsap Transit can shut down.

Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS require Kitsap Transit to abide by mitigation measures previously used by other applicants regarding contacting the Orca Network and/or Center for Whale Research for both marine mammal sightings and acoustic detection data.

NMFS Response: Both the application and proposed IHA Federal Register notice included a condition that Kitsap Transit access the Orca Network each day of pile driving. NMFS has added that this specifically applies to both visual and acoustic monitoring data.

Comment 3: The Commission recommends that NMFS require Kitsap Transit and any other action proponent using a bubble curtain to implement what they refer to as “NMFS's bubble curtain performance standards” in all relevant authorizations. The Commission provided the following performance standards it deems is neither unreasonable or cost-prohibitive: (1) The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column, (2) the lowest bubble ring should be in contact with the mudline for the full circumference of the ring, and the weights attached to the bottom ring should ensure 100 percent mudline contact (no parts of the ring or other objects shall prevent full mudline contact), and (3) the action proponent requires construction contractors to train personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers and to submit an inspection/performance report for approval by the action proponent within 72 hours following the performance test—corrections to the attenuation device to meet the performance standards are to occur prior to impact driving.

NMFS Response: The Commission mischaracterized the referenced performance measures as NMFS' “standards.” These measures were developed by the U.S. Navy, in consultation with NMFS, as a direct result of documented issues with bubble curtain performance. These issues were problematic because NMFS considered a reduction in impact pile driving source level based on effective bubble curtain use. The same case does not apply here and NMFS disagrees with the Commission's contention that consideration of any source level reduction has no bearing on whether an applicant should be implementing performance measures. NMFS will consider the appropriateness of including some or all of the proposed bubble curtain performance measures on a case-by-case basis.

NMFS also disagrees with the Commission's comment that the performance measures should be implemented because they are neither unreasonable nor cost-prohibitive. Mitigation requirements in an IHA must be carefully assessed with respect to NMFS' authority under the MMPA. For the subject IHA, Kitsap Transit did not request, nor did NMFS propose a reduction in impact pile driving source levels due to use of the bubble curtain. That is, the use of a bubble curtain did not influence our effects analysis or take numbers. Moreover, use of the bubble curtain was not critical to NMFS making a negligible impact determination required to issue the IHA. In addition to negligible impact and small numbers findings, mitigation measures are designed to provide the least practicable adverse impact to marine mammals. Use of the bubble curtain was part of the proposed action due to requirements separate and apart from Kitsap Transit's request for an IHA. However, to dictate how the applicant operates the bubble curtain, trains operators, reports inspection results on performance testing, and makes any corrections is not appropriate for this short project involving small (12-in and 24-in) piles for which we did not consider use of the bubble curtain quantitatively in our effects analysis.

Finally, it is unclear how the Commission determined the implementation of the performance measures would not be unreasonable nor cost-prohibitive which are their reasons for us to include these measures. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service may require certain operational criteria through consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The Commission does not provide evidence they have considered these or any other potential operational protocols. Further, the applicant did not provide a bubble curtain performance testing plan so it is unclear how the Commission determined requiring one would not be cost-prohibitive for this small, short project.

Comment 4: The Commission recommends that it should be a priority for NMFS to consult with both internal and external scientists and acousticians to determine the appropriate Level A harassment accumulation time that action proponents should use to determine the extent of the Level A harassment zones based on the associated SELcum thresholds for the various types of sound sources. Until such time that this issue is resolved, the Commission postulated that NMFS is relegated to using the outputs of its user spreadsheet, while also rounding up the outputs of the user spreadsheet to the nearest 5, 10, 25 or 100 m, when more sophisticated modeling is not available.

NMFS Response: As described in NMFS 2018 Revision to Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing, NMFS is committed to re-examining the default 24-hour accumulation period and convening a working group to investigate alternative means of identifying appropriate accumulation periods. However, NMFS already considers factors other than the outputs of the User Spreadsheet in developing appropriate Level A harassment zones and/or shutdown zones. For example, in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA, NMFS identified the Level A harassment distances generated by the User Spreadsheet represented a long duration but produced very small harassment zones (e.g., six hours of vibratory pile removal per day separated in time to re-set piles resulted in an 11.8 m Level A harassment distance for harbor seals). Per the Commission, NMFS should round this up to a 15 meter Level A harassment zone. However, NMFS believes this results is an unwarranted shut down zone as sophisticated modeling is not necessary to justify that a harbor seal would not remain 11.8 meters from piles being removed over the course of several hours. In addition, NMFS is implementing a minimum 10 m shut down for all in-water equipment, including pile driving. However, NMFS does agree integrated shut-down zones (e.g., 5 to 10 meter increments) are more practicable for observers; therefore, the new shut down zone in the example provided is 10 m. For larger distances (e.g., 393.8 meters), we have rounded to 395 meters despite the long duration in consideration of the unpredictable movement and lower profile of harbor seals.

Comment 5: The Commission recommends NMFS provide its criteria for rounding take estimates.

NMFS Response: On June 27, 2018, NMFS provided the Commission with internal guidance on rounding and the consideration of additional factors in take estimation.

Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS refrain from implementing its proposed renewal process and instead use abbreviated Federal Register notices and reference existing documents to streamline the incidental harassment authorization process; NMFS provide the Commission with a legal analysis supporting the conclusion the renewal process is consistent with the requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA; and should NMFS issue a renewal IHA, NMFS should publish notice in the Federal Register whenever such a renewal has been issued.

NMFS Response: Until an applicant requests renewal of an IHA for which public comment was received on the proposal to potentially renew the initial IHA, NMFS will continue to make abbreviated notices available to the public when proposing IHA renewals. When an applicant requests renewal of an IHA for which public comment was received on the proposed IHA (when first issued), NMFS will utilize the renewal process because the original notice of the proposed IHA expressly notifies the public that under certain, limited conditions an applicant could seek a renewal IHA for an additional year. Therefore the public comment period is not bypassed. To make this clearer to the public, NMFS added language to the SUMMARY of all proposed IHAs requesting the public comment on the potential renewal. In addition, all proposed IHA notices describes the conditions under which such a renewal request could be considered and expressly seeks public comment in the event such a renewal is sought. Importantly, such renewals would be limited to where the activities are identical or nearly identical to those analyzed in the proposed IHA, monitoring does not indicate impacts that were not previously analyzed and authorized, and the mitigation and monitoring requirements remain the same, all of which allow the public to comment on the appropriateness and effects of a renewal at the same time the public provides comments on the initial IHA. All IHAs, including renewal IHAs, are valid for no more than one year and that the agency would consider only one renewal for a project at this time. NMFS will publish a description of the renewal process on our website before any renewal is issued utilizing the new process. Finally, NMFS has previously notified the Commission that a notice of issuance or denial of a renewal IHA would be published in the Federal Register.

A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by Kitsap Transit's activity, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, are provided in Kitsap Transit's application and the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 22624; May 16, 2018). We are not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks. To avoid repetition, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to additional species information available in the NMFS stock assessment reports for the Pacific and Alaska at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/region.htm.

We provided a detailed description of the anticipated effects of the specified activity on marine mammals in our Federal Register notice announcing the proposed authorization (83 FR 22624; May 16, 2018). Please refer to that document for our detailed analysis; we provide only summary information here.

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving and removal is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from Kitsap Transit's specified activity. The effects of pile driving noise on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class (e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous history with exposure (Southall et al., 2007, Wartzok et al. 2004). Animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and behavioral effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al. 2007). In general, exposure to pile driving noise has the potential to result in auditory threshold shifts (permanent threshold shift (PTS) and temporary threshold shift (TTS)) and behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior).

Similar pile driving and removal activities have been conducted in Sinclair Inlet and, more broadly, Puget Sound. Marine mammal monitoring conducted under several IHAs indicate there are no permanent or significant impacts to marine mammals from exposure to pile driving noise.

Construction activities at the Annapolis Ferry Terminal could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat and their prey by increasing in-water sound pressure levels and slightly decreasing water quality. Any impacts are anticipated to be localized, short-term, and minimal.

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers” 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 A and B harassment. Level A harassment is authorized for those cases where animals are undetected before exposure to noise levels that may induce auditory injury. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be 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 authorized 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., 2012). 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. For in-air sounds, NMFS predicts that phocids and otariids exposed above received levels of 90 dB and 100 dB re 20 μPa (rms), respectively, may be behaviorally harassed.

Kitsap Transit's project includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are applicable.

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). Kitsap Transit's activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) sources.

These thresholds are provided in Table 3. 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.

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

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

Sound Source Levels—The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical environment in which the activity takes place. There are source level measurements available for certain pile types and sizes from the specific environment of several of nearby projects (i.e., NBK Bangor and NBK Bremerton), but not from all. Numerous studies have examined sound pressure levels (SPLs) recorded from underwater pile driving projects in California (e.g., Caltrans, 2015) and elsewhere in Washington. In order to determine reasonable SPLs and their associated effects on marine mammals that are likely to result from pile driving at the six installations, studies with similar properties to the specified activity were evaluated.

No direct pile driving measurements at the Annapolis Ferry Dock are available. Therefore, Kitsap Transit reviewed available values from multiple nearshore marine projects obtained from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) using similar type of piles (e.g., size and material) and water depth (Caltrans, 2015). NMFS also evaluated the proposed source levels with respect to pile driving measurements made by the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) at other ferry terminals in Puget Sound as well as measurements collected by the Navy in Puget Sound. A full description of source level analysis is contained within the notice of proposed IHA (83 FR 22624, May 16, 2018).

When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of overestimate of take by Level A harassment. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as pile driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS. A description of inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths are reported below.

Kitsap Transit estimates it will take a maximum of six hours, per day, to install or remove piles using a vibratory hammer (up to four piles per day). For steel piles that are “proofed,” Kitsap Transit estimated approximately 1,000 hammer strikes per pile would be required with two piles installed per day. If piles can be installed completely with the vibratory hammer, Kitsap Transit would not use an impact hammer; however, it is included here as a possibility. A practical spreading model (15logR) was used for all calculation. NMFS considered these inputs when using the NMFS user spreadsheet (Table 5).

Background

Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare stock assessments for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, including the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). These reports must contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995.

The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic stocks. The term “strategic stock” means a marine mammal stock: (A) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level (PBR) (defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population); (B) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific independent Scientific Review Groups (SRG), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to incorporate new information.

NMFS updated SARs for 2017, and the revised draft reports were made available for public review and comment for 90 days (82 FR 60181, December 19, 2017). NMFS received comments on the draft 2017 SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. This notice announces the availability of the final 2017 reports for the 75 stocks that were updated. These reports are available on NMFS' website (see ADDRESSES).

In the draft 2017 common bottlenose dolphin Barataria Bay Estuarine System (BBES) and Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau (MS Sound) SARs, we updated the abundance estimates but listed the recovery factor for both of these stocks as 0.5, which is the appropriate factor for stocks with unknown status (Wade and Angliss 1997). We should have updated the recovery factor for each stock to 0.4 because the coefficient of variation (CV) of the shrimp trawl mortality estimates for Louisiana bays, sounds, and estuaries (BSE) stocks (BBES SAR) and Mississippi and Alabama BSE stocks (MS Sound SAR) is greater than 0.8 (Wade and Angliss 1997). Based on the recovery factor of 0.4, we recalculated PBR for both stocks; the PBR decreased from 21 to 17 for the BBES stock and from 29 to 23 for the MS Sound stock. In the final 2017 SARs for these two stocks, we have updated the “Potential Biological Removal” section, as well as the Atlantic SARs Summary Table 1, to reflect the update in recovery factor from 0.5 to 0.4 and adjusted PBR values. These technical corrections do not affect the strategic status for either stock.

NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2017 SARs from the Marine Mammal Commission; seven non-governmental organizations (Cascadia Research Collective, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Hawaii Longline Association, Humane Society Legislative Fund, The Humane Society of the United States, Point Blue Conservation Science, and Whale and Dolphin Conservation); and three individuals. Responses to substantive comments are below; comments on actions not related to the SARs are not included below. Comments suggesting editorial or minor clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports, but they are not included in the summary of comments and responses. In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be considered or incorporated in future revisions of the SARs rather than being incorporated into the final 2017 SARs.

Comment 1: The Commission comments that the SARs are a valuable reference to scientists and managers and the parameters in the summary tables for each region are a vital resource for issues involving multiple stocks, or when managing at regional or national levels. The Commission notes the value of the tables would be improved if there were more consistency among regions in the types of information presented and how it is presented. The Commission recommends that NMFS convene a panel, including SAR authors from all three regions, to identify the key information to be included, decide how to present that information in a consistent manner in the summary tables for all regions, and facilitate the implementation of these changes for the final 2018 SARs. The Commission notes they would be interested in participating in the panel discussions.

Response: We acknowledge and appreciate the Commission's suggestion, and agree with the Commission that consistency among the regions, particularly the information included in the summary tables, is important. We will look into convening a panel to address how the information we present in the summary tables for each region could be more consistent across the regions and would welcome the Commission's participation in the panel discussions. However, due to timing constraints for the publication of the draft and final 2018 SARs and other priorities, we cannot commit to setting up a panel and incorporating any recommended changes in time to include in the final 2018 SARs. We will strive to have revised summary tables included in the draft 2019 SARs.

Comment 2: The Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Legislative Fund, and Whale and Dolphin Conservation (the Organizations) note that NMFS' late release of the draft 2017 SARs led to a situation where the draft 2018 SARs were drafted and reviewed by the SRGs prior to the finalization of the 2017 reports. The Organizations argue that this overlap in timing of the SARs did not allow the agency an opportunity to meaningfully consider public comments on the draft 2017 SARs before developing the 2018 reports. The Organizations argue that NMFS has failed to make its draft stock assessments “based on best scientific information available” and has repeatedly failed to meaningfully consider the advice of SRGs and the best available science when publishing its final stock assessments. The Organizations suggest that in order to properly consider public comment, SRG input, and best available science, NMFS should follow the following timeline each year: NMFS sends the draft SARs for the current year to the SRGs early in the year; the SRGs meet shortly after to discuss the drafts; the draft SARs are open for public comment; NMFS publishes the final SARs for the current year by the end of the year; NMFS sends the draft SARs for next year to the SRGs early the next year.

Response: We acknowledge and agree with this comment regarding the importance of following the SAR process timeline so the current year's draft SARs do not overlap with the final SARs from the previous year. Unfortunately, the publication of the draft 2017 SARs was delayed until the end of the year. This was an anomaly, and we are actively working to publish the 2018 draft SARs in order to have the 2018 SARs finalized, with submitted public and SRG comments considered, by the end of the year (before the SRGs meet in early 2019 to review the draft 2019 SARs).

NMFS respectfully disagrees with the Organizations' statement that we do not meaningfully consider the comments we receive from the public or the recommendations made by the SRGs. We carefully consider and respond to all substantial comments we receive from the public and the SRGs on the draft SARs and incorporate any revisions into the final SARs. In the event that a report changes substantively as a result of public comment after the SRG has reviewed the next cycle's draft reports, we would provide the SRGs an opportunity to review such changes.

Comment 3: The Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) continues to assert that the SARs are not based upon the best available scientific information because they are based upon data that are at least two years old—even when new, relevant data are otherwise available. NMFS has yet to provide a credible justification for continuing the present two-year delay in the use of information. HLA maintains that the MMPA's requirement that the SARs be based on the “best scientific information available” is not being met as the SARs do not incorporate the most recent marine mammal interaction information that has been reported by observers and for which the agency has made a serious or non-serious injury determination. HLA notes that for marine mammal interaction purposes, those data are the best available, and yet NMFS does not report it.

Response: As noted in previous years, the marine mammal SARs are based upon the best available scientific information, and NMFS strives to update the SARs with as timely data as possible. In order to develop annual mortality and serious injury estimates, we do our best to ensure all records are accurately accounted for in that year. In some cases, this is contingent on such things as bycatch analysis, data entry, and assessment of available data to make determinations of severity of injury, confirmation of species based on morphological and/or molecular samples collected, etc. Additionally, the SARs incorporate injury determinations that have been assessed pursuant to the NMFS 2012 Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals (NMFS 2012), which requires several phases of review by the SRGs.

Reporting on incomplete annual mortality and serious injury estimates could result in underestimating actual levels. The MMPA requires us to report mean annual mortality and serious injury estimates, and we ensure that we are accounting for all available data before we summarize those data. With respect to abundance, in some cases we provide census rather than abundance estimates, and the accounting process to obtain the minimum number alive requires two years of sightings to get a stable count, after which the data are analyzed and entered into the SAR in the third year. All animals are not seen every year; waiting two years assures that greater than 90 percent of the animals still alive will be included in the count. As a result of the review and revision process, data used for these determinations typically lag two years behind the year of the SAR.

Comment 4: The Commission notes that information on subsistence hunting and harvest is becoming increasingly important in light of the pace of changes occurring in the Arctic and sub-Arctic. Over the past several years, the Commission has repeatedly recommended that NMFS improve its monitoring and reporting of subsistence hunting and harvest in collaboration with its co-management partners. The Commission appreciates the updates made by NMFS to the SARs in response to these recommendations and encourages NMFS to continue to provide updated information whenever it becomes available, even if it pertains only to a limited number of villages or a subset of years.

The Commission states that tracking the numbers of marine mammals successfully hunted as well as the numbers struck and lost, is critical to the management of harvested stocks. The Commission noted that the struck and lost data in the U.S. subsistence harvest information for four stocks of beluga whales in the draft 2017 SARs was absent, presumably due to “inconsistences in reporting.” The Commission encourages the inclusion of all available data, with any uncertainties or needed explanations about the values noted in the SAR, and recommends that NMFS include all available data in the SARs and clearly delineate landings, struck and lost, and total numbers harvested for each beluga whale stock. In addition, the Commission recommends that NMFS work with the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee to improve the completeness of and consistency in reporting harvest data, with a focus on struck and lost information for these stocks.

Response: We are actively working to improve reporting of struck and lost animals associated with beluga whale subsistence harvests. NMFS works closely with the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, and there is consensus that collecting information on struck and lost animals, along with the numbers of harvested beluga whales, is important to document. We will continue to coordinate with the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee to improve this reporting so we can include these data in future SARs.

Comment 5: The Commission referenced their previous comments on draft SARs for the Southeast Alaska (SEAK) stock of harbor porpoise and noted that the harbor porpoise abundance estimates were calculated using an assumption that g(0) (the probability of detection on the trackline) was 1.0, which they stated is almost certainly not adequate. They noted the agency had responded that preliminary data had been collected on g(0) and recommended that this information should be used in lieu of an assumption of 1.0; if this is not possible, the Commission recommended that NMFS choose a value from a study, or studies, that most closely matches the SEAK population and survey in terms of factors that most significantly influence g(0).

Response: The Alaska Fisheries Science Center's (AFSC) Marine Mammal Laboratory attempted to conduct an experiment to estimate g(0) during their 2012 vessel survey of harbor porpoise in Southeast Alaska. Unfortunately, the analysis of the preliminary data indicated that the sample size from the survey was insufficient to compute g(0). In the absence of a g(0) specific to surveys of Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise, the AFSC will select an appropriate value of g(0) from similar surveys of other harbor porpoise populations to compute new abundance estimates from the 2010-2012 data for the inland waters of Southeast Alaska and for the northern and southern regions of the inland waters. After review by the Alaska Scientific Review Group, we will include these new estimates (and corresponding values for NMIN and PBR) in the draft 2019 Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise SAR.

Comment 6: The Commission notes that for several years, NMFS has been reporting an M/SI estimate for the SEAK population of harbor porpoises based on data obtained by fisheries observers from the Yakutat salmon set gillnet fishery in 2007 and 2008, and from the SE Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery in 2012 and 2013 (Districts 6, 7 and 8, only). That M/SI estimate, of 34 porpoises per year, is considered to be a minimum because observations did not cover all the gillnet fisheries with the potential to take SEAK harbor porpoises. In addition, the estimate is imprecise (aggregate CV = 0.77) because of the very low observer coverage rates on which it is based (5.3 to 7.6 percent per year).

Prior to 2017, because of the substantial uncertainty in M/SI estimates, NMFS classified the SEAK harbor porpoise stock as “strategic” under the MMPA. In the draft 2017 SAR, NMFS proposed classifying the stock as “strategic” in light of the large difference between the estimated M/SI and the calculated PBR. Because of the bias in PBR associated with the g(0) estimate described above, the problem could be less severe than it appears or, because of the incomplete observer coverage, it could be worse. Additionally, knowledge of other harbor porpoise populations and preliminary research results presented at the 2018 Alaska SRG meeting suggest that it is quite possible that what currently is delineated as the SEAK harbor porpoise stock in fact consists of two or more stocks. Until the stock structure, and the PBR and M/SI for each stock, are known with more certainty, the magnitude of the threat posed by gillnet fishing will not be fully apparent. In any case, applying the best available science and taking into account the uncertainty in the assessment, it is most likely that the level of take of SEAK harbor porpoises by gillnet fisheries is unsustainable.

Response: We acknowledge the Commission's comment and agree that we cannot fully understand the magnitude of the threat until we acquire more information on stock structure, M/SI, and PBR. NMFS will continue to pursue avenues to better understand these parameters.

Comment 7: The Commission states that the uncertainty of the seriousness of the Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise bycatch problem centers on three factors: (1) Statistical uncertainty in the bycatch rate, (2) bias in the value of PBR, and (3) uncertainty regarding stock structure. To address these issues, the Commission recommends that NMFS: (1) Provide funding and work with the State of Alaska to increase observer coverage throughout all gillnet fisheries in SEAK to a level that will produce a bycatch estimate with a CV less than 0.3; (2) improve the accuracy of the abundance estimate by using the best available estimate of g(0) for this population or an appropriately selected estimate from a similar population; and (3) continue to give high priority to funding and conducting innovative eDNA investigations of SEAK harbor porpoise stock structure by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center.

Response: NMFS agrees with the Commission's recommendations. (1) While we recognize the need for more current observer coverage of State-managed fisheries, we do not currently have the funds necessary for the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program or a similar program that could provide these insights into marine mammal M/SI associated with these fisheries; (2) the AFSC will select an appropriate value of g(0) from similar surveys of other harbor porpoise populations to improve the accuracy of the abundance estimates for harbor porpoise in the inland waters of Southeast Alaska; and (3) NMFS agrees that funding research on eDNA investigations of Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise stock structure is a high priority and hopes to support this work at some level in FY18.

Comment 8: The Commission notes that in the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's Whale SAR, the Stock Definition section was revised to include information on acoustic detections in addition to visual sightings, but it did not include citations for the acoustic detections. Širović et al. (2013), Rice et al. (2014), and possibly Soldevilla et al. (2017) are three recent studies that reported on acoustic detections of Bryde's whales. The Commission recommends that NMFS include the source documents for acoustic detections of Bryde's whales in the Gulf of Mexico and update the map and caption for Figure 1 in the SAR accordingly.

Response: NMFS has added the additional citations regarding acoustic detections of Bryde's whales to the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's Whale SAR. We have not updated the map with locations of acoustic detections (deployment locations for Marine Autonomous Recording Units and sonobuoys that recorded whale vocalizations) because this information would not alter what we know about Bryde's whale spatial distribution at this time.

Comment 9: The Commission points out that the Habitat Issues section of the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's Whale SAR states that the estimated mortality of Bryde's whales from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 3.8 whales between 2011 and 2015, based on population modeling. The Commission recommends that NMFS report the estimate of oil spill-caused mortality of 3.8 whales in the Human-Caused Mortality and Serious Injury section of the Bryde's whale SAR to clarify how NMFS derived an annual mean mortality of 0.7 whales per year for the period 2011-2015, based solely on the reported 22 percent decline in abundance as a result of the oil spill. The Commission also recommends that NMFS add a statement to the Current Population Trend section to reflect the projected 22 percent decline in population size resulting from the spill, as was done for the Barataria Bay bottlenose dolphin stock.

Response: We have taken the Commission's recommendation and expanded the Other Mortality text within the Annual Human-Caused Mortality and Serious Injury section to clarify that the 0.8 (corrected from 0.7) annual mean mortality is derived from the mortality estimate of 3.8 whales for the period 2011-2015 due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. However, we have not made any further edits to the Current Population Trend section as this section already makes a statement regarding the 22 percent decline in population size.

Comment 10: One commenter pointed out that North Atlantic right whales and Gulf of Maine Humpback whales have undergone “significant mortality events” in the past year(s) which do not appear to be included in the M/SI estimates in the 2017 SARs.

Response: See response to Comment 3. The 2017 SAR covers data from 2011-2015. Mortality events in 2016 will first appear in the 2018 SARs, and those from 2017 will appear in the 2019 SARs. We will make an exception in the North Atlantic right whale 2018 SAR and include the unusual number of events in 2017 in the text, but these events will not be included in the table or in estimates of mortality until the 2019 SAR.

Comment 11: One commenter suggested inclusion of data on the shifting baseline in the marine environment and habitat factors in the SARs for North Atlantic right whale and Gulf of Maine humpback whales, analogous to the Essential Fish Habitat component for fisheries management used under the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act. This type of data could provide insights on changes in distribution/abundance in space/time. The shifting baseline phenomenon from increased human usage and environmental changes requires some type of dynamic component to the SAR models which would allow confidence intervals for the abundance and M/SI values.

Response: NMFS thanks the commenter for raising concerns about the shifting baseline phenomenon and the importance of including habitat factors and note that we are taking these issues into consideration in our modeling approaches. For example, we are currently working on seasonal habitat models for all cetaceans that may be useful in tracking humpback, fin and sei whale area use patterns because they are based on malleable oceanographic features.

Comment 12: The Commission notes that NMFS has reported a substantial recent increase in the number of entanglements of humpback and blue whales on the West Coast. Prior to 2015, no entanglements of blue whales had been reported, but 12 blue whale entanglements were confirmed between 2015 and 2017. From 1982 to 2013, the number of confirmed West Coast entanglements of humpback whales averaged 2.1 animals per year. The Commission stresses that the substantial number of entanglements of humpback whales that have occurred recently on the West Coast is a matter of concern and may reflect a problem that has gone undetected for much longer.

The Commission points out that with the addition of M/SI from other causes (e.g., entanglements in other gear types and ship strikes), the average confirmed M/SI over 2011-2015 was 9.2 whales per year, which is very close to the PBR of 11 whales for this stock. Considering undetected entanglements, the average M/SI of humpback whales almost certainly was greater than PBR for this period. The uncertainty associated with undetected M/SI is compounded by undetected ship strikes. Two recent publications (Rockwood et al., 2017 and Nichol et al., 2017) assessing large-whale ship-strike risk on the West Coast were not cited in the draft 2017 Pacific SARs.

The MMPA requires SARs for strategic stocks be reviewed at least annually and updated when necessary, as in the case of a significant increase in M/SI. Given recent increases in entanglements and in M/SI, the Commission notes the delay in reviewing these two stocks is unacceptable and recommends that NMFS either incorporate the best available science into the 2017 SARs or prepare draft 2018 SARs for the West Coast humpback and blue whale stocks, to be reviewed intersessionally by the Pacific SRG, so that they can be included in the final 2018 SARs.

Response: We acknowledge and appreciate the Commission's concerns. The publication of the Rockwood et al. (2017) vessel strike estimates occurred after the draft 2017 SARs had been submitted for agency clearance. We have updated the final 2017 SARs to note the availability of these new estimates, and we will incorporate the results of those vessel strike estimates into the draft 2018 SARs for both humpback and blue whales.

Comment 13: Point Blue and Cascadia Research suggest that NMFS incorporate the results from their recent publication (Rockwood et al., 2017) on the assessment of mortality from ship strikes for both blue and humpback whales into the 2017 SARs. This publication uses a new approach to estimate one of the key parameters regarding ship strike mortality, the underreporting rate, and shows that based on this new analysis (that is consistent with other data on recovery rates) ship strike mortality is being severely under estimated. They note the SARs have acknowledged that documented cases of ship strikes are certain to be underestimates of the true number of deaths, and assert that their research provides a metric for how many ship strike deaths actually occur relative to the number documented. Rockwood et al. (2017) reports a best conservative estimate of 18 blue and 22 humpback whale deaths per 6-month season. Based on these predictions and the average annual strike reports from 2006-2016 (1.0 for blue and 1.4 for humpback whale), they calculated that 95 percent of blue whale and 94 percent of humpback whale strike deaths go undocumented. Given the uncertainty in accounting for whale collision avoidance, they also calculated strike mortality in the case of no avoidance, producing estimates of 40 blue and 48 humpback whale deaths. In addition, Point Blue notes that the lack of detected blue whale strike deaths from 2011-2015 results in an assumption of zero strike mortality and a determination that the current level of serious injury and mortality is less than 10 percent of PBR. They stress that the Rockwood et al. (2017) results should be included in the 2017 SAR since it provides evidence that blue whale ship strike mortality is almost certainly ongoing and well above zero.

Response: See response to Comment 12.

Comment 14: Cascadia Research notes the CA/OR/WA humpback whale SAR does not include that in addition to the underestimated ship strike mortality, fishery mortality is also being dramatically underestimated based on information available at the time of the draft document that would certainly put this overall stock well above PBR. Entanglement mortality of humpback whales off California went through a dramatic increase starting in 2015 and continuing through 2016 and 2017. Fishery mortality in the draft SAR is based on a 5-year average through 2015 so only includes one of these three years of elevated mortality in the 5-year average. Cascadia Research suggests the SAR should mention this increased mortality known for those added years and that new calculations conducted in a similar fashion with the known 2016 or 2017 entanglements would have put the 5-year average above the PBR. Further, like ship strike mortality, observed entanglement rates dramatically underestimate true mortality and no correction for this underreporting is made in the SAR. The concerns above that would result in mortality exceeding PBR do not include this under-reporting and compound the downward bias to how this is represented in the SAR.

Response: See response to Comment 3. The review cycle for the draft 2017 SARs results in data through 2015 being available for incorporation into the draft reports. Entanglement data through 2016 will be incorporated into the draft 2018 SARs for blue and humpback whales.

Comment 15: Cascadia Research notes that the humpback whale SAR may give the mistaken impression that the new status of humpback whales under the ESA may change how the PBR's are calculated and alter the mortality exceeding PBR. However, they suggest that as the small endangered Central America humpback whale DPS is made up almost entirely of whales that feed off the California coast, the observed mortality will exceed PBR in future years due to the California entanglements regardless of how the new calculations are made.

Response: As described in our Federal Register notice requesting comments on the Draft 2017 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (82 FR 60181, December 19, 2017), NMFS is currently in the process of reviewing stock structure under the MMPA for all humpback whales in U.S. waters, following the change in ESA listing for the species in 2016, to determine whether we can align the stocks with the DPSs under the ESA. The most current SAR does not delineate a Central America DPS of humpback whales as a stock under the MMPA. Until such time that the humpback whale stock structure under the MMPA with respect to the ESA listing has been completed, we are retaining the current stock delineations and it is premature to hypothesize calculations of PBR in future years. Any changes in stock delineation or MMPA section 117 elements (such as PBR or strategic status) will be reflected in future stock assessment reports.

Comment 16: CBD comments that NMFS is required to review and incorporate new scientific information in the stock assessments and revise the assessment for strategic stocks, such as the humpback whale, at least annually. While NMFS began the process to examine the stock structure in the spring of 2016, including considering revising the stock assessment to incorporate information about the breeding population, it has not finalized its analysis. CBD stresses that NMFS should not further delay publishing a final revision to the humpback whale stock assessment report in accordance with the best available science to reflect the distinct population segments off the U.S. West Coast. They note the practical implication of the delay is that ship strikes and fisheries continue without adequate mitigation, including recategorizing West Coast pot and trap fisheries, which present the largest known fisheries threat to humback whales, as “Category I.” CBD asserts that assessing PBR at the level of the distinct population segment (DPS) is more informative for determining the population impact of the effect of ship strikes on humpback whales.

Response: We agree that revising the stock structure for humpback whales is a high priority; however, the process of reviewing stock structure under the MMPA has taken longer than anticipated. See response to Comment 15 above.

Comment 17: CBD comments that humback whale stocks on the West Coast should correspond to the distinct population segments (as listed under the Endangered Species Act in 2016) and the Mexico and Central America DPSs should not be considered in one stock. They assert that to protect the precariously low abundance of Central America humpback whales, the PBR for whales off California, Oregon and Washington should be based on the abundance of the Central America DPS (a PBR level of 0.8), and all injury and mortality of humpback whales that occurs off California should be assigned to the Central America DPS. CBD is concerned that the delay in action jeopardizes the future of humpback whales in the Central America distinct population segment and recommends that NMFS revise the draft stock assessment to show that at a maximum, the smallest stock of humpback whales on the West Coast has no more than 411 individuals.

Response: As described in our response to Comment 15 above, we are in the process of reviewing the MMPA humpback whale stock delineations; until such time that the humpback whale stock structure under the MMPA with respect to the ESA listing has been completed, we are treating existing MMPA stocks that fully or partially coincide with a listed DPS as depleted, and stocks that do not fully or partially coincide with a listed DPS as not depleted for management purposes. Therefore, in the interim, we will continue to treat the California/Oregon/Washington stock as endangered and depleted. Currently, there is no Central America DPS stock of marine mammals delineated under the MMPA.

Comment 18: CBD requests that the final stock assessment report for Southern Resident Killer whales accurately reflects the recent decline and alarmingly low population. The death of the two-year-old male orca known as “J52” was confirmed in September 2017 by the Center for Whale Research, which reported malnutrition as the likely cause. The population of critically endangered Southern Resident killer whales, which makes its home in Puget Sound and migrates along the West Coast, dipped from 83 in 2016 to only 76 by the end of 2017. This change represents the biggest decline in population from year-to-year ever recorded. CBD suggests that especially in light of the decline, NMFS should update the draft SARs to ensure it contains accurate and timely information.

Response: NMFS drafted the 2017 SAR before the end-of-year 2017 population size estimates were available. We will include new estimates in the draft 2018 SAR for southern resident killer whales.

Comment 19: The HLA recognizes that the false killer whale draft 2017 SAR appropriately calculates separate M/SI rates for only the years 2013 through 2015, so that the fisheries, as currently managed, can be more accurately evaluated against the relevant PBRs. However, HLA reiterates that NMFS should eliminate the five-year look-back period and report only data generated after the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan (FKWTRP) regulations became effective, and the data prior to 2013 should no longer be used because it is no longer part of the best available scientific information.

HLA suggests that, at a minimum, NMFS should not continue to use pre-2013 data for the Main Hawaiian Islands Insular FKW Stock (Insular Stock) and asserts that the TRP has resulted in decreased interactions with the Insular Stock because (i) the TRP regulations closed the fishery to almost all of the Insular Stock's range, (ii) effort in the Insular Stock's range has drastically reduced to almost zero as a consequence, and (iii) the fishery has had zero interactions with the Insular Stock since 2013. They stress that this is the situation contemplated by the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS), which recommends “if within the last five years the fishery has changed (e.g., fishing effort or the mortality rate per unit of fishing effort has changed), it would be more appropriate to use only the most recent relevant data to most accurately reflect the current level of annual mortality.” HLA states that if NMFS continues to regulate the deep-set fishery as if it has interactions with the insular stock, it will undermine any TRT discussions regarding the Insular Stock and HLA may also be forced to reconsider its position on the Insular Stock closure.

Response: NMFS has responded to similar versions of this comment previously. As noted in prior responses, if there have been significant changes in fishery operations that are expected to affect incidental mortality rates, such as the 2013 implementation of the FKWTRP, the GAMMS (NMFS 2016) recommend using only the years since regulations were implemented. The SAR contains information preceeding and following the FKWTRP, 2008-2012 and 2013-2015 respectively, and reports M/SI for these two time periods as well as the most recent 5-year average. Both the 3 year post-TRP average take rate, as well as the 5-year average that spans the period before and after the TRP, indicate the pelagic stock fishery take is below PBR; and, therefore, the stock is not considered strategic. NMFS continues to report the 5-year average in the Status of Stock section for the pelagic stock because various assessments of FKWTRP effectiveness note that neither overall take rate nor the rate of non-serious injury for the pelagic stock are significantly reduced through the implementation of the FKWTRP. NMFS does agree with HLA that the expanded longline exclusion area implemented under the FKWTRP offers near complete protection to this stock from interactions with the longline fishery, and as such has modifed the Status of Stock section for this stock to reflect this change.

Comment 20: The HLA notes that for a decade (until this year) NMFS has reported a M/SI rate for the deep-set fishery that exceeds PBR for the Hawaii pelagic false killer whale stock (“pelagic stock”). However, the best available information suggests that the number of false killer whales in the Hawaii EEZ has not declined during the same time that the supposedly unsustainable M/SI rate was occurring. The HLA disagrees with the M/SI levels reported in the draft SAR and with NMFS' conclusion that the vast majority of all fishery interactions with the pelagic stock cause injuries that “will likely result in mortality.” If that were the case, then after a decade or more of allegedly unsustainable levels of take, there would be some evidence of a declining pelagic stock abundance. No such evidence exists. The HLA recommends that the draft SAR expressly recognize this discrepancy, and NMFS should revisit the manner in which it determines M/SI for false killer whale interactions.

Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 78 FR 19446, April 1, 2013, comments 45 and 51; 79 FR 49053, August 18, 2014, comment 26; 80 FR 50599, August 20, 2015, comment 34; 81 FR June 14, 2016, comment 44; and 82 FR June 27, 2017, comment 44). The comment contends that the stock abundance has not declined in over a decade and attributes this persistence of false killer whales despite high levels of fishery mortality to NMFS' improper assessment of the severity of injuries resulting from fisheries interactions, improper assessment of population abundance and trend, or both. Assessment of injury severity under NMFS' 2012 serious injury policy (NMFS 2012) has been discussed in numerous previous comment responses and is based on the best available science on whether a cetacean is likely to survive a particular type of injury. Further study of false killer whales would certainly better inform the assigned outcomes; but, until better data become available, the standard established in the NMFS 2012 policy on distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries will stand. Further, assessments of pelagic false killer whale population trend are inappropriate for several reasons: (1) The entire stock range is unknown, but certainly extends beyond the Hawaii EEZ, such that the available abundance estimates do not reflect true population size; (2) there have been only two surveys of the entire Hawaii EEZ, an insufficient number to appropriately assess trend, shifts in distribution, or any examination of false killer whale population health; and (3) the available survey data were collected with different protocols for assessing false killer whale group size, a factor that will significantly impact the resulting abundance estimates. A robust assessment of population trend will require additional data and inclusion of environmental variables that influence false killer whale distribution and the proportion of the population represented within the survey area during each survey period.

Comment 21: The HLA notes that the draft false killer whale SAR updates the Insular Stock population estimate to 167 based upon an unpublished paper by Bradford et al., which concludes that the population size of the Insular Stock of false killer whales in certain study areas has consistently ranged between 144 and 187 animals over a 16-year period. However, in reporting 167 as the population size for the Insular Stock, the Draft SAR states that the Bradford et al. annual estimate “represents only the animals present in the study area within that year.” HLA suggests that, if the reported 2015 abundance estimate of 167 applies only to a study area that is smaller than the range of the Insular Stock of false killer whales, then the actual abundance of the entire Insular Stock must be some amount higher than 167. HLA states that they are unable to sufficiently comment on this issue because the Bradford et al. paper is unpublished and not available for public review.

Response: NMFS notes that although the abundance estimates provided in Bradford et al. are limited to the number of animals in the survey area in each survey year, they are still the best available estimates of population size. The new estimates account for many sources of potential bias, and although we expect that limiting estimates to the surveyed area for a given year does likely result in an under estimation of abundance in years when the surveyed area is smaller than the stock area, we do not have sufficient information to correct annual estimates for the extent of the survey area. NMFS feels the use of estimates derived from the best available data spanning 15 years of surveys is far better than use of catalog size, the previous metric for the minimum population estimate (Nmin) in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) insular false killer whale SAR. Further, the Nmin derived from the new mark-recapture estimates meets the definition of Nmin provided within the GAMMS (NMFS 2016). Although cited as “in review,” the Bradford et al. paper was reviewed by the Pacific SRG at its 2017 meeting and is currently in review for journal publication.

Comment 22: The HLA incorporates by reference its more specific comments on previous draft SARs related to: (1) The assignment of a recovery factor to the pelagic stock of false killer whales, and continues to maintain that NMFS should apply a recovery factor to the pelagic stock that is greater than 0.5; (2) the 2010 Hawaiian Islands Cetacean Ecosystem and Assessment Survey (HICEAS) and the assumptions made by NMFS based upon the data from that survey, and assert that NMFS has inappropriately withheld acoustic data that should be publicly disclosed and reported; and (3) NMFS' assumption that the insular stock of false killer whales has declined is speculative.

Response: NMFS reiterates its responses to these comments from previous SARs. Specifically: (1) Reanalysis of existing datasets to derive more precise estimates does not constitute an increase in population size. There are only two EEZ-wide estimates of abundance (484 from a 2002 survey and 1,540 from a 2010 survey). These estimates may not be directly compared due to changes in group size enumeration methods between those surveys. For this reason, the current status of pelagic false killer whales is unknown. (2) NMFS has not made any attempt to withhold the acoustic data from the HICEAS 2010 survey. It can be made available by request. NMFS has used the HICEAS 2010 data for a variety of analyses, including the development of automated routines to detect and classify false killer whale and other species' sounds, to assess false killer whale sub-group spatial arrangements, and other projects. There were many changes in array hardware during the survey, complicating streamlined analyses of these data, such that a full-scale analysis of this dataset for abundance is not appropriate, efficient, or cost-effective at this time. (3) NMFS makes no assumption that MHI insular stock abundance has declined in recent years. The minimum estimate reflects the number of individuals enumerated during the stated period and may reflect not only changes in actual population abundance, but also changes in encounter rates due to survey location or animal distribution.

Background

NOAA is preparing a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) for coral reef conservation and restoration activities implementing NOAA's CRCP throughout the United States, South Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Island Regions, and priority international areas (i.e., wider Caribbean, Coral Triangle, South Pacific, and Micronesia). It will assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of NOAA's proposed action to continue funding and otherwise implementing coral reef conservation and restoration activities. This will be achieved through its existing programmatic framework and related procedures for implementing the CRCP. The CRCP is implemented consistently with the requirements of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (CRCA) and Executive Order 13089. Projects implemented or funded by NOAA vary in terms of their size, complexity, geographic location, and NOAA involvement. They often benefit diverse coral species, habitats, and ecosystem types. The CRCP conducts research and monitoring to gather data on the existence and condition of coral reef ecosystems to support conservation and restoration efforts. NOAA implements the CRCP across four of its line offices (i.e., National Ocean Service, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Environmental Satellite Data Information Service) and in coordination with other federal agencies, state and local agencies, private conservation organizations, and research and academic institutions. A significant amount of this support is administered through grants and cooperative agreements. CRCP activities are prioritized based on available funding and the responsiveness to the priorities in its strategic plan, including jurisdictional needs.

The purpose of this DPEIS is to identify and evaluate the general environmental impacts, issues, and concerns related to the comprehensive management and implementation of the CRCP, including potential mitigation. NOAA anticipates that actual environmental effects will be caused by site-specific, project-level activities implementing the CRCP; therefore, this DPEIS will be used to support tiered, site-specific NEPA reviews by narrowing the scope of environmental impacts and facilitating focused, project-level reviews. NOAA also intends for this DPEIS to establish a tiered environmental decision making framework that will support efficient compliance with other statutes protecting natural resources such as the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. Since the CRCP will use this DPEIS to conduct tiered analyses, this document does not evaluate the environmental impacts of any project-level activities.

NOAA is preliminarily proposing to analyze three program-level alternatives:

• No Action Alternative reflecting the “status quo” management of the CRCP based on minimizing threats.

• Alternative 1: Continued Operation of the CRCP based on minimizing threats with the addition of a framework to further research, test, and potentially implement novel coral restoration intervention techniques to respond rapidly to imminent threats to corals and coral ecosystems.

• Alternative 2: Continued Operation of the CRCP plus implementation of discretionary, standardized conservation and mitigation measures with or without the addition of a framework for novel intervention techniques.

The fundamental distinction between Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative is that Alternative 1 would adopt a framework that would add novel intervention techniques as tools to respond to imminent threats to corals. The DPEIS will consider the environmental effects of a suite of these intervention strategies, but will not commit to implement any. Implementation would occur through a separate decision making process. The primary distinction between Alternative 2 and the No Action Alternative is that Alternative 2 would call for implementation of not only mitigation measures imposed through statutory and regulatory compliance but also discretionary, standardized conservation and mitigation measures designed to further protect and conserve marine and other environmental resources. Alternative 2 could be adopted with or without a framework for novel intervention strategies.

Preliminary major issues to be addressed in this DPEIS may include: the impact of the CRCP's activities and operations on coral ecosystems; coral species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act; other marine and terrestrial resources; and the cumulative effects of the action when considered along with environmental conditions and past, present, and future actions potentially affecting coral and coastal ecosystems and coastal marine resources. The CRCP is also seeking to identify mitigation measures that would be effective at avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating adverse effects of project-level activities and specifically requests public comment on this issue.

OCM begins this NEPA process by soliciting input from the public and interested parties on the type of impacts to be considered in the DPEIS, the range of alternatives to be assessed, and any other pertinent information. Specifically, this scoping process is intended to accomplish the following objectives:

1. Invite affected federal, state, and local agencies, and interested persons to participate in the DPEIS process.

2. Determine the potential significant environmental issues to be analyzed in the DPEIS.

3. Identify and eliminate issues determined to be insignificant or addressed in other documents.

4. Identify related environmental documents being prepared.

5. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements.

The official scoping period ends on August 15, 2018. Please visit the CRCP web page for additional information regarding the program: https://coralreef.noaa.gov/.

The preparation of the DPEIS for the CRCP will be conducted under the authority and in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), other applicable regulations, and NOAA's policies and procedures for compliance with those regulations.

Written comments must be received on or before August 15, 2018.

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: The purpose of the meeting is to review the Army historical program and provide advice and recommendations to the Executive Director of the U.S. Army Center of Military History and to the Secretary of the Army.

Agenda: The committee is chartered to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on the educational, doctrinal, and research policies and activities of U.S. Army educational programs. At this meeting the subcommittee will review the Army historical program and discuss ways to improve the provision of historical support to the Army. The subcommittee will also discuss ways to increase cooperation between the historical and military professions in advancing the purpose of the Army Historical Program and furthering the mission of the U.S. Army Center of Military History to promote the study and use of military history in both civilian and military Schools.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first to arrive basis. Attendees are requested to submit their name, affiliation, and daytime phone number seven business days prior to the meeting to Dr. Schlosser, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public attending the committee meetings will not be permitted to present questions from the floor or speak to any issue under consideration by the committee. Because the meeting of the committee will be held in a Federal Government facility on a military post, security screening is required. A photo ID is required to enter post. Please note that security and gate guards have the right to inspect vehicles and persons seeking to enter and exit the installation. The U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center is fully handicapped accessible. Wheelchair access is available in front at the main entrance of the building. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Dr. Schlosser, the committee's Alternate Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the committee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the committee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Dr. Nicholas J. Schlosser, the committee Alternate Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Alternate Designated Federal Official at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the committee. The Alternate Designated Federal Official will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the committee Chairperson, and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the committee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the committee until its next meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Committee meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least seven (7) days in advance to the Committee's Alternate Designated Federal Official, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Alternate Designated Federal Official will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the committee Chairperson determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Committee's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during the period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the Alternate Designated Federal Official.

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: The Board is chartered to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on construction and rehabilitation project investments on the commercial navigation features of the inland waterways system of the United States. At this meeting, the Board will receive briefings and presentations regarding the investments, projects and status of the inland waterways system of the United States and conduct discussions and deliberations on those matters. The Board is interested in written and verbal comments from the public relevant to these purposes.

Agenda: At this meeting the agenda will include the status of funding for inland Navigation in the FY 2018 Work Plan; status of the FY 2019 Budget for the Navigation Program; status of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) and project updates; Contingencies for the ongoing IWTF construction projects in the Ohio River Region; status of the construction activities for Olmsted Locks and Dam Project, the Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4 on the Monongahela River Project, Chickamauga Lock Project and Kentucky Lock Project; operations briefing for Olmsted Locks and Dam; presentation for the LaGrange Lock and Dam Major Rehabilitation; and update of the Colorado River Locks and Brazos River Floodgates Study.

Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the August 30, 2018 meeting. The final version will be provided at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the website after the meeting.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Registration of members of the public who wish to attend the meeting will begin at 7:15 a.m. on the day of the meeting. Seating is limited and is on a first-to-arrive basis. Attendees will be asked to provide their name, title, affiliation, and contact information to include email address and daytime telephone number at registration. Any interested person may attend the meeting, file written comments or statements with the committee, or make verbal comments from the floor during the public meeting, at the times, and in the manner, permitted by the committee, as set forth below.

Special Accommodations: The meeting venue is fully handicap accessible, with wheelchair access. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact Mr. Pointon, the committee DFO, or Mr. Lichtman, the ADFO, at the email addresses or telephone numbers listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Board about its mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mr. Pointon, the committee DFO, or Mr. Lichtman, the committee ADFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. The comment or statement must include the author's name, title, affiliation, address, and daytime telephone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the committee DFO or ADFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that they may be made available to the Board for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Board until its next meeting. Please note that because the Board operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

Verbal Comments: Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Board meeting only at the time and in the manner allowed herein. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) business days in advance to the committee DFO or ADFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The committee DFO and ADFO will log each request to make a comment, in the order received, and determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Board's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO and ADFO.

Title: FERC-587, Land Description (Public Land States/Non-Public Land States [Rectangular or Non-Rectangular Survey System Lands in Public Land States]).

OMB Control No.: 1902-0145.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-587 information collection reporting requirements.

Abstract: The Commission requires the FERC-587 information collection to satisfy the requirements of section 24 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The Federal Power Act grants the Commission authority to issue licenses for the development and improvement of navigation and for the development, transmission, and utilization of power across, along, from or in any of the steams or other bodies of water over which Congress has jurisdiction.1 The Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) amends the FPA to allow the Commission the responsibility of issuing licenses for nonfederal hydroelectric plants.2

Section 24 of the FPA requires that applicants proposing hydropower projects on (or changes to existing projects located within) lands owned by the United States to provide a description of the applicable U.S. land. Additionally, the FPA requires the notification of the Commission and Secretary of the Interior of the hydropower proposal. FERC-587 consolidates the information required and identifies hydropower project boundary maps associated with the applicable U.S. land.

The information consolidated by the Form No. 587 verifies the accuracy of the information provided for the FERC-587 to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Moreover, this information ensures that U.S. lands can be reserved as hydropower sites and withdrawn from other uses.

The Commission is also making the following changes to the FERC Form No. 587 instructions. FERC is not changing the reporting requirements of the information collection:

—Revise Paragraph 3 3 as follows:

Title: FERC-567, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual Reports of System Flow Diagrams and System Capacity.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0005.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-567 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: The Commission uses the information from the FERC-567 to obtain accurate data on pipeline facilities and the peak capacity of these facilities. Additionally, the Commission validates the need for new facilities proposed by pipelines in certificate applications. By modeling an applicant's pipeline system, Commission staff utilizes the FERC-567 data to determine configuration and location of installed pipeline facilities; verify and determine the receipt and delivery points between shippers, producers and pipeline companies; determine the location of receipt and delivery points and emergency interconnections on a pipeline system; determine the location of pipeline segments, laterals and compressor stations on a pipeline system; verify pipeline segment lengths and pipeline diameters; justify the maximum allowable operating pressures and suction and discharge pressures at compressor stations; verify the installed horsepower and volumes compressed at each compressor station; determine the existing shippers and producers currently using each pipeline company; verify peak capacity on the system; and develop and evaluate alternatives to the proposed facilities as a means to mitigate environmental impact of new pipeline construction.

18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 260.8(a) requires each major natural gas pipeline with a system delivery capacity exceeding 100,000 Mcf per day to submit by June 1 of each year, diagrams reflecting operating conditions on the pipeline's main transmission system during the previous 12 months ended December 31. These physical/engineering data are not included as part of any other data collection requirement.

Type of Respondents: Applicants with a system delivery capacity in excess of 100,000 Mcf 1 per day.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 2 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Meeting access: These meetings will be open to the public. The full Agenda and meeting materials will be available at the HSRB website: http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board. For questions on document availability, or if you do not have access to the internet, consult with the DFO, Thomas O'Farrell, listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Special accommodations. For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodation of a disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

The HSRB encourages the public's input. You may participate in these meetings by following the instructions in this section.

1. Oral comments. To pre-register to make oral comments, please contact the DFO, Thomas O'Farrell, listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Requests to present oral comments during the meeting will be accepted up to Noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, for the July 25, 2018 meeting and up to Noon Eastern Time on Thursday, September 6, 2018 for the September 13, 2018 meeting. To the extent that time permits, interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the HSRB Chair to present oral comments during either meeting at the designated time on the agenda. Oral comments before the HSRB are generally limited to five minutes per individual or organization. If additional time is available, further public comments may be possible.

2. Written comments. Submit your written comments prior to the meetings. For the Board to have the best opportunity to review and consider your comments as it deliberates, you should submit your comments by Noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, for the July 25, 2018 meeting and up to Noon Eastern Time on Thursday, September 6, 2018 for the September 13, 2018 meeting. If you submit comments after these dates, those comments will be provided to the HSRB members, but you should recognize that the HSRB members may not have adequate time to consider your comments prior to their discussion. You should submit your comments to the DFO, Thomas O'Farrell listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no limit on the length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB.

The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 5 U.S.C. App. 2 sec. 9. The HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations on issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of third-party human subjects research that are submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to be used for regulatory purposes.

Topic for discussion. On July 25, 2018, EPA's Human Studies Review Board will consider a study protocol titled “Laboratory evaluation of mosquito bite protection from permethrin-treated clothing after 0, 50, 75, and 100 washings” submitted by Pulcra Industries.

The Agenda and meeting materials for this topic will be available in advance of the meeting at http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.

On September 13, 2018, the HSRB will review and finalize their draft Final Report from the July 25, 2018 meeting, in addition to other topics that may come before the Board. The HSRB may also discuss planning for future HSRB meetings. The agenda and the draft report will be available prior to the meeting at http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.

Meeting minutes and final reports. Minutes of these meetings, summarizing the matters discussed and recommendations made by the HSRB, will be released within 90 calendar days of the meeting. These minutes will be available at http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board. In addition, information regarding the HSRB's Final Report, will be found at http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board or from Thomas O'Farrell listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Title: Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report.

Form Number: OGE Form 278e.

OMB Control Number: 3209-0001.

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

Type of Review Request: Regular.

Respondents: Private citizen Presidential nominees to executive branch positions subject to Senate confirmation; other private citizens who are potential (incoming) Federal employees whose positions are designated for public disclosure filing; those who file termination reports from such positions after their Government service ends; and Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 4,821.

Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 48,210 hours.

Abstract: The OGE Form 278 collects information from certain officers and high-level employees in the executive branch for conflicts of interest review and public disclosure. The form is also completed by individuals who are nominated by the President for high-level executive branch positions requiring Senate confirmation and individuals entering into and departing from other public reporting positions in the executive branch. The financial information collected relates to: Assets and income; transactions; gifts, reimbursements and travel expenses; liabilities; agreements or arrangements; outside positions; and compensation over $5,000 paid by a source—all subject to various reporting thresholds and exclusions. The information is collected in accordance with section 102 of the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C. app. sec. 102, as amended by the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-105) (STOCK Act) and OGE's implementing financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634.

In 2013, OGE sought and received approval for the OGE Form 278e, an electronic version of the Form 278, implemented pursuant to the e-filing system mandated under section 11(b) of the STOCK Act. The OGE Form 278e collects the same information as the OGE Form 278. In 2014, OGE sought and received approval to incorporate the OGE Form 278e into its new Integrity e-filing application. Integrity has been in use since January 1, 2015, and OGE now requires filers to use a version of the OGE Form 278e rather than the old OGE Form 278. The version of the Form 278e that is produced by Integrity is a streamlined output report format that presents only the filer's inputs in given categories and does not report other categories not selected by the filer.

On October 5, 2016, OGE published a proposed rule for amending 5 CFR part 2634. See 81 FR 69204-69238 (October 5, 2016). The proposed modifications to the OGE Form 278e revise the instructions to reflect the changes to the financial disclosure regulation, if adopted as final. Specifically, OGE proposes to: Revise the reporting period for termination reports to include the entire preceding calendar year if a required annual report has not been filed; revise the income disclosure requirement to include only received income; revise the “widely diversified” criterion for purposes of determining whether a fund qualifies as an “excepted investment fund;” add a new feature (checkbox) for purposes of managing early termination report filing on the Integrity version of the Form 278e; clarify the Definition section of Part 2; clarify when a source of compensation need not be disclosed and the method for disclosing the existence of such sources; and eliminate the disclosure of transactions that occurred before the reporting individual became subject to the public financial disclosure requirements.

OGE is also proposing to update the Privacy Act statement in accordance with changes to the applicable system of records and to make certain minor formatting changes and corrections to the instructions and one of the data entry fields.

Request for Comments: Agency and public comment is invited specifically on the need for and practical utility of this information collection, the accuracy of OGE's burden estimate, the enhancement of quality, utility and clarity of the information collected, and the minimization of burden (including the use of information technology). Comments received in response to this notice will be summarized for, and may be included with, the OGE request for extension of OMB paperwork approval. The comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.

Agency Form Number: OGE Form 450.

OMB Control Number: 3209-0006.

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

Type of Review Request: Regular.

Respondents: Prospective Government employees, including special Government employees, whose positions are designated for confidential disclosure filing and whose agencies require that they file new entrant confidential disclosure reports prior to assuming Government responsibilities.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 24,640.

Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 73,920 hours.

Abstract: The OGE Form 450 collects information from covered department and agency employees as required under OGE's executive branch wide regulatory provisions in subpart I of 5 CFR part 2634. The basis for the OGE reporting regulation is section 201(d) of Executive Order 12674 of April 12, 1989 (as modified by Executive Order 12731 of October 17, 1990) and section 107(a) of the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C. app. sec. 107(a). OGE proposes several modifications to the form.

On October 5, 2016, OGE published a proposed rule for amending 5 CFR part 2634. See 81 FR 69204-69238 (October 5, 2016). The proposed modifications to the OGE Form 450 revise the instructions to reflect the changes to the financial disclosure regulation, if adopted as final. Specifically, OGE proposes to: Change the reporting periods for each part completed by new entrants; change the income disclosure threshold to $1,000 of received income; eliminate the disclosure of diversified funds held within an employee benefit plan; clarify that the disclosure requirement for agreements and arrangements includes those with a current employer; eliminate the disclosure of continued participation in a defined contribution plan to which an employer is no longer making contributions; and combine gifts and travel reimbursement into a single category for purposes of applying the disclosure thresholds.

OGE is also proposing to update the Privacy Act Statement in accordance with changes to the applicable system of records, update the examples provided on the last page of the form, and make other minor technical changes.

Request for Comments: OGE is publishing this first round notice of its intent to request paperwork clearance for a proposed modified OGE Form 450. Public comment is invited specifically on the need for and practical utility of this information collection, the accuracy of OGE's burden estimate, the enhancement of quality, utility and clarity of the information collected, and the minimization of burden (including the use of information technology). Comments received in response to this notice will be summarized for, and may be included with, the OGE request for extension of OMB paperwork approval. The comments will also become a matter of public record.

Purpose: This Council advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Director, CDC, regarding the elimination of tuberculosis. Specifically, the Council makes recommendations regarding policies, strategies, objectives, and priorities; addresses the development and application of new technologies; and reviews the extent to which progress has been made toward eliminating tuberculosis.

Matters To Be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on (1) Isoniazid-Rifapentine TB Prevention in HIV-infected Persons Study; (2) Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention's Strategy of Adopting HIV Treatment as Prevention; (3) Update on Division of Tuberculosis Elimination's Concept of Operations for Latent Tuberculosis Infection Surveillance; and (4) Update from ACET workgroups. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

Purpose: The Board of Scientific Counselors makes recommendations regarding policies, strategies, objectives, and priorities; and reviews progress toward injury and violence prevention. The Board also provides advice on the appropriate balance of intramural and extramural research, and guidance on the needs, structure, progress and performance of intramural programs. The Board also provides guidance on extramural scientific program matters, including the: (1) Review of extramural research concepts for funding opportunity announcements; (2) conduct of secondary peer review of extramural research grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts applications received in response to the funding opportunity announcements as they relate to the Center's programmatic balance and mission; (3) submission of secondary review recommendations to the Center Director relating to applications to be considered for funding support; (4) review of research portfolios, and (5) review of program proposals.

Matters To Be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on secondary peer review of extramural research grant and cooperative agreement applications received in response to two (2) Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs): RFA-CE-18-001, Research Grants for Preventing Violence and Violence Related Injury (RO1); SBIR PA-17-302, PHS 2017-2 Omnibus Solicitation of the NIH, CDC and FDA for Small Business Innovation Research Grants. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

This information collection supports the above captioned Agency guidance document. The guidance document was issued to help individuals with procedures on formal meetings between FDA and sponsors or applicants regarding the development and review of PDUFA products. The guidance describes procedures for requesting, scheduling, conducting, and documenting such formal meetings. The guidance provides information on how FDA interprets and applies section 119(a) of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 2007 (FDAMA) (Pub. L. 105-115), specific PDUFA goals for the management of meetings associated with the review of human drug applications for PDUFA products, and provisions of existing regulations describing certain meetings (§§  312.47 and 312.82 (21 CFR 312.47 and 312.82)). The collection of information described in the guidance reflects the current and past practice of sponsors and applicants to submit meeting requests and background information prior to a scheduled meeting. Agency regulations currently permit such requests and recommend the submission of an information package before an “end-of-phase 2 meeting” (§§  312.47(b)(1)(ii) and (iv)) and a “pre-NDA meeting” (§  312.47(b)(2)). While the information collection provisions of §  312.47 are currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0014, the guidance provides additional recommendations for submitting information to FDA in support of a meeting request. The guidance document is available on our website at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM590547.pdf.

Request for a Meeting—Consistent with recommendations found in the guidance, a sponsor or applicant interested in meeting with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) should submit a meeting request to the appropriate FDA component as an amendment to the application for the underlying product in accordance with our regulations (§§  312.23, 314.50, and 601.2 (21 CFR 312.23, 314.50, and 601.2)). Information provided to the Agency as part of an investigational new drug application (IND), NDA, or biological license application (BLA) must be submitted with an appropriate cover form. Form FDA 1571 must accompany IND submissions, and Form FDA 356h must accompany NDA and BLA submissions. These Agency forms are approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0338, respectively.

We recommend that a request be submitted in this manner to ensure that each request is kept in the administrative file with the complete application, and to ensure that pertinent information about the request is entered into appropriate tracking databases. Using information from our tracking databases enables us to monitor progress on activities attendant to scheduling and holding a formal meeting and to ensure that appropriate steps will be taken in a timely manner.

The guidance recommends that meeting requests include the following information:

We use the information to determine the purpose of the meeting, the necessary participants, the proposed agenda, and to schedule the meeting.

Information Package—The guidance also recommends that a sponsor or applicant submitting an information package provide summary information relevant to the product and supplementary information pertaining to any issue raised by the sponsor, applicant, or FDA. Information packages should generally include:

The information package enables Agency staff to prepare for the meeting and allows appropriate time for reviewing relevant product data. Although FDA reviews similar information in the meeting request, the information package should provide updated data reflecting the most current and accurate information available to the sponsor or applicant.

We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase since the previous OMB approval. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of meeting requests and information packages received over the last few years.

Based on Agency data, we estimate 1,319 sponsors and applicants (respondents) request 3,058 formal meetings with CDER annually, and 301 respondents request 363 formal meetings with CBER annually regarding the development and review of a PDUFA product. The hours per response, which is the estimated number of hours that a respondent spends preparing the information to be submitted with a meeting request in accordance with the guidance, is estimated to be 10 hours. We expect it takes this amount of time to gather and copy brief statements about the product as well as a description of the purpose and details of the meeting.

Also consistent with Agency data, we estimate 1,149 respondents submitted 2,522 information packages to CDER annually, and 187 respondents submitted 210 information packages to CBER annually, prior to a formal meeting regarding the development and review of a PDUFA product. We estimate 18 hours is needed to prepare the information package in accordance with the guidance.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Sections 201, 502, 505, and 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 352, 355, and 371) require that marketed drugs be safe and effective. To monitor the safety and efficacy of drugs that are on the market, FDA must be promptly informed of adverse experiences associated with the use of marketed drugs. FDA issued regulations at §§ 310.305 and 314.80 (21 CFR 310.305 and 314.80) to implement reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the drug industry that would enable FDA to take the action necessary to protect the public health from adverse drug experiences.

All applicants who have received marketing approval of drug products are required to report to FDA serious, unexpected adverse drug experiences (15-day “Alert reports”), as well as followup reports (§ 314.80(c)(1)). This includes reports of all foreign or domestic adverse experiences as well as those based on information from applicable scientific literature and certain reports from postmarketing studies. Section 314.80(c)(1)(iii) pertains to such reports submitted by nonapplicants.

Under § 314.80(c)(2), applicants must provide periodic reports of adverse drug experiences. A periodic report includes, for the reporting interval, reports of serious, expected adverse drug experiences and all nonserious adverse drug experiences and an index of these reports, a narrative summary and analysis of adverse drug experiences, an analysis of the 15-day Alert reports submitted during the reporting interval, and a history of actions taken because of adverse drug experiences. Under § 314.80(j), applicants must keep for 10 years records of all adverse drug experience reports known to the applicant.

For marketed prescription drug products without approved new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications, manufacturers, packers, and distributors are required to report to FDA serious, unexpected adverse drug experiences as well as followup reports (§ 310.305(c)). Section 310.305(c)(5) pertains to the submission of followup reports to reports forwarded to the manufacturers, packers, and distributors by FDA. Under § 310.305(g), each manufacturer, packer, and distributor shall maintain for 10 years records of all adverse drug experiences required to be reported.

The primary purpose of FDA's adverse drug experience reporting system is to enable identification of signals for potentially serious safety problems with marketed drugs. Although premarket testing discloses a general safety profile of a new drug's comparatively common adverse effects, the larger and more diverse patient populations exposed to the marketed drug provide the opportunity to collect information on rare, latent, and long-term effects. Signals are obtained from a variety of sources, including reports from patients, treating physicians, foreign regulatory agencies, and clinical investigators. Information derived from the adverse drug experience reporting system contributes directly to increased public health protection because the information enables FDA to make important changes to the product's labeling (such as adding a new warning), to make decisions about risk evaluation and mitigation strategies or the need for postmarketing studies or clinical trials, and when necessary, to initiate removal of a drug from the market.

Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers, packers, distributors, and applicants. The following estimates are based on FDA's knowledge of adverse drug experience reporting, including the time needed to prepare the reports and the number of reports submitted to the Agency.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The burden associated with table 2 has increased due to the electronic Safety Reporting Rule that mandated sponsors to submit ALL reports electronically by September 2016. Prior to this date, FDA did not enter all individual report data in document tracking systems or count some types of paper-based nonexpedited reports (i.e., those describing adverse events that are both nonserious and previously labeled). With required electronic reporting of all reports and each report counted separately, the total number of records and required recordkeeping also increased.

Agenda: The committees will discuss results from assessments of the transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl (TIRF) medicines' risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS), approved in December 2011. The TIRF REMS requires that healthcare providers who prescribe TIRF medicines for outpatient use are specially certified, that pharmacies that dispense TIRF medicines for inpatient and outpatient use are specially certified, and that completion of the prescriber-patient agreement form occurs prior to dispensing TIRF medicines for outpatient use. The Agency will seek the committees' assessment as to whether this REMS with elements to assure safe use (ETASU) assures safe use, is not unduly burdensome to patient access to the drugs, and to the extent practicable, minimizes the burden to the healthcare delivery system. The Agency will also seek the committees' input on any possible modifications to the TIRF REMS goals and requirements, as well as input on the adequacy of the evaluations conducted in the REMS assessments to determine whether the TIRF REMS goals are being met. Comments from the public can be submitted to the docket (see ADDRESSES section) on a broad evaluation of the TIRF REMS and whether any aspect of the TIRF REMS should be modified as well as any proposed modifications.

FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committees. All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see ADDRESSES section) on or before July 25, 2018, will be provided to the committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before July 19, 2018. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by July 20, 2018.

Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at [email protected] or 301-796-4540.

FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Philip A. Bautista (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Smallpox (Variola Virus) Infection: Developing Drugs for Treatment or Prevention.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to assist sponsors in all phases of development of antiviral drugs for the treatment or prevention of smallpox (variola virus) infection. This draft guidance addresses nonclinical development, key study design considerations for animal efficacy studies to support potential new drug application (NDA)/biologics license application (BLA) submissions under the animal rule (21 CFR part 314, subpart I, for drugs and 21 CFR part 601, subpart H, for biologics), and considerations for obtaining a human safety database.

This draft guidance revises the draft guidance for industry entitled “Smallpox (Variola) Infection: Developing Drugs for Treatment or Prevention” issued on November 23, 2007 (72 FR 65750). The revisions intend to streamline the guidance and incorporate input from a public workshop in 2009 and an advisory committee meeting in 2011. This revision contains the following changes:

• Modification and integration of several sections to focus on multidisciplinary considerations for studies in animal models of orthopoxvirus disease, including:

• Additional clarification on the following:

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on developing drugs for the treatment and prevention of smallpox (variola virus) infection. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information in 21 CFR part 312 (investigational new drug applications) has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collection of information in 21 CFR part 314 (NDAs) has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collection of information resulting from special protocol assessments has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0470. The collection of information resulting from emergency use authorization of medical products has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0595. The collection of information resulting from individual patient expanded access applications has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0814. The collection of information resulting from good laboratory practices has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0119.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on May 8, 2018 at 83 FR 20850.

Title of Information Collection: Production of Material or Provision of Testimony by HUD in Response to Demands in Legal Proceedings Among Private Litigants.

OMB Approval Number: 2510-0014.

Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collection.

Form Number: N/A.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Section 15.203 of HUD's regulations in 24 CFR specify the manner in which demands for documents and testimony from the Department should be made. Providing the information specified in 24 CFR 15.203 allows the Department to more promptly identify documents and testimony which a requestor may be seeking and determine whether the Department should produce such documents and testimony.

Estimated Number of Respondents/Estimated Number of Responses:

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

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

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: Information collected by the Service (in support of the land acquisition program) is required under applicable statutes, DOJ regulations, Departmental and Service policies, and best business practices. Examples of initial information collected from a willing-seller landowner include: The legal owner and/or co-owner names and addresses; the property location; the property legal description; the approval to access property; and permission to inspect and appraise. In the acquisition of certain low-value properties, or land donations, the Service also collects an approval for waiver of appraisal requirements. In those cases where a proposed land acquisition, from a willing seller, meets all the requisite inspections, surveys, valuation, environmental compliance, authorized approvals, and legal reviews, then the Service also collects additional information necessary to complete the legal conveyance documents, the associated financial transactions, and any Internal Revenue Service reporting requirements. The Service utilizes the Pre-Acquisition Tracking System (PATS) as the standard database in this information collection effort.

The PATS is a nationwide database system that minimizes data input errors and reduces risk while creating efficiencies through standardization of the Service's land acquisition business practices. The PATS simplifies the collection, use, sharing, and reporting of realty data, and provides a standard platform for interaction and collaboration throughout the Service's land acquisition program. The PATS directly benefits willing-seller landowners by ensuring that electronic data pertaining to them, or their property, is maintained in a secure, enterprise-wide database system, and that document preparation errors are minimized utilizing standardized data input protocols and document management capabilities. Implementation of this approach will make data calls and status reports more consistent and timely, and the Service will be in compliance with the PRA.

In addition, the PATS database facilitates Secretarial Order 3356 and 3366 by tracking land acquisitions that have potential to support public hunting, fishing, and other forms of outdoor recreation, and access related thereto.

Authorities for the collection of realty-related information include:

• Regulations of the Attorney General Governing the Review and Approval of Title for Federal Land Acquisitions (2016);

• Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (49 CFR 24);

• National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd);

• Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718d);

• Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r, as amended);

• Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l);

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1534);

• Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901); and,

• Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a).

Information collected by the Service's Division of Realty via PATS may include the following:

• Initial Requests—Initial request to consider property, to include such items as:

○ Identifying information for the legal property owner(s), such as:

○ Financial information, to include Social Security Numbers (necessary for final payment transaction).

○ Property description, to include such information as:

Forms used by the Service in conjunction with initial requests to collect information from the public include:

• Access Permission Letter (nonform—letter)—The Permission to Access Letter is a cover letter that contains the Permission to Inspect and Appraise document and may contain a Waiver of Appraisal document.

• Permission to Inspect and Appraise (FWS Form 3-2471)—Collects information about the property owner and location, and grants permission to enter and inspect the property for real estate acquisition purposes. Inspection may include, but is not limited to:

○ Appraisal Valuations;

○ Boundary survey;

○ Hazardous materials examination (contaminant survey); and

○ Physical examination of any structures on the property.

The document is not used in projects that are under Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), Memoranda of Agreement (MOA), Cooperative Agreements, some donation partnerships, and other special cases.

• Waiver of Appraisal Requirement (nonform—letter)—Per 49 CFR 24.102(c)(2), a willing-seller landowner may release the Service from the obligation of obtaining an appraisal for: (1) Land donations and (2) certain land acquisitions where the anticipated value is low and the valuation problem is uncomplicated.

Information is collected and protected in accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We will maintain the information in a secure System of Records (Real Property Records, FWS-11, 64 FR 103 dated May 2, 1999). We gather Social Security numbers and banking information to assist with electronic payments and preparation of the required Internal Revenue Service Forms 1099.

Title of Collection: PATS—Pre-Acquisition Tracking System.

OMB Control Number: 1018—New.

Form Number: 3-2471.

Type of Review: Existing collection in use with an OMB Control Number.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals/households, private sector, and State/local/Tribal governments participating in realty transactions with the Service.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Advisory Board was established under the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, on the needs of Indian children with disabilities. The meetings are open to the public.

The following items will be on the agenda:

* During the July 27, 2018, meeting, time has been set aside for public comment via conference call from 11:30-12:00 p.m. Mountain Time. The call-in information is: Conference Number 1-888-417-0376, Passcode 1509140.

Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Board to consider during the public meeting. Written statements received in advance of the meeting will be made available to the Council for their consideration. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement during the time reserved for public comment should contact the DFO (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) before the meeting.

The lands surveyed are: The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary and portions of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of sections 8 and 18, Township 18 North, Range 105 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 964, was accepted July 2, 2018.

The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, the retracement of the westerly right-of-way of Wyoming State Highway No. 371 in sections 33 and 34, and the metes-and-bounds survey of Parcel A, section 34, Township 21 North, Range 102 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 969, was accepted July 2, 2018.

The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and portions of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 13, Township 14 North, Range 78 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 970, was accepted July 2, 2018.

The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 33 North, Range 69 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 972, was accepted July 2, 2018.

The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of Homestead Entry Survey No. 196, a portion of the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of section 18, and the survey of the subdivision of section 18 and the meanders of the Gros Ventre River, and the metes-and-bounds survey of Tract 38, Township 42 North, Range 113 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 975, was accepted July 2, 2018.

The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the subdivisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 20, Township 3 North, Range 2 West, of the Wind River Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 976, was accepted July 2, 2018.

The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the subdivisional lines and the survey of the subdivision of section 20, Township 33 North, Range 68 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 980, was accepted July 2, 2018.

A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication with the Wyoming State Director at the above address. Any notice of protest received after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the State Director within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed. If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.

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

Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $4.20 per plat and $.13 per page of field notes.