Federal Register Vol. 83, No.16,

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Title: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Waivers of Section 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act.

Form Number: None.

OMB Number: 0584-0479.

Expiration Date: 3/31/2018.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Section 824 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Public Law 104-193, 110 of Stat. 2323 amended Section 6(o) of the Food Stamp act of 1997 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o)) to establish a time limit for the receipt of food stamp benefits for certain able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) who are not working at least 20 hours per week. This time limit applies only to adults between 18 and 50 years of age that do not have children or adult dependents in their SNAP household. ABAWD recipient eligibility is limited to three months within a 36 month period, unless the individual is working, or participating in a designated employment and training activity, for 20 hours per week. (Note. Pursuant to the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-234, 112 Stat. 923, enacted May 22, 2008), the Food Stamp Act was renamed the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and the Food Stamp Program was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP].)

The provision authorizes that upon the request of a State agency, the Secretary of Agriculture may waive this provision for any group of individuals if the Secretary determines “that the area in which the individuals reside has an unemployment rate of over 10 percent or does not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide employment for the individuals.” As required in the statute, in order to receive a waiver, the State agency must submit sufficient supporting information so that the Secretary can make the required determination as to the area's unemployment rate or insufficiency of available jobs. This collection of information is necessary in order to obtain waivers of the SNAP ABAWD time limit.

Based on the experience of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) during calendar year 2016, FNS projects that 36 out of 53 State agencies will submit requests for a waiver of the time limit for ABAWD recipients based on a high unemployment rate or an insufficient number of jobs. A typical State waiver request includes several geographic areas and each geographic area may include multiple cities or counties. FNS projects that of the 36 requests each year, 34 will be based on labor market data and 2 will be based on a Labor Surplus Area (LSA) designation by the Department of Labor (DOL). FNS estimates a response time of 35 hours for each waiver request based on labor market data, which require detailed analysis of labor markets within the State. FNS estimates a burden of 4 hours per respondent for waivers based on an LSA designation, as the data required to support these waivers is readily available from the DOL website and requires minimal preparation by State agencies. FNS projects a total of 1,198 hours.

Affected Public: State Agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 36.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 36.

Estimated Time per Response: Varies between 4 to 35 Hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,136.

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-395-3241, conference ID: 1850034. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by February 9, 2018. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

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

Background

In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on November 28, 2017, Commerce published affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE.1 On January 11, 2018, the ITC notified Commerce of its affirmative determination, pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of the LTFV imports of wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE, and its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of wire rod from Russia subject to Commerce's affirmative critical circumstances determination.2

The product covered by these orders is wire rod. For a complete description of the scope of these orders, see the Appendix to this notice.

In accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reasons of imports of wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE.3 The ITC also notified Commerce of its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of wire rod from Russia subject to Commerce's critical circumstances finding.4 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce is issuing these AD orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price, or constructed export price, of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 12, 2017, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations,5 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register, as further described below.

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all relevant entries of wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on the subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the cash deposit rates listed below.6 The relevant all-others rates apply to producers or exporters not specifically listed, as appropriate.

Section 733(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. In reference to these proceedings, no such request was received from exporters of wire rod from Belarus, Russia, or the UAE. Commerce's preliminary determinations were published on September 12, 2017.7 As such, the four-month period ended on January 9, 2018. Pursuant to section 737(b) of the Act, the collection of cash deposits at the rates listed below will begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after January 9, 2018, the date on which provisional measures expired, through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register.

With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination regarding imports of wire rod from Russia, Commerce will instruct CBP to lift suspension and refund any cash deposits made to secure payment of estimated antidumping duties on subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 14, 2017, (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determinations), but before September 12, 2017, (i.e., the date of publication of the preliminary determinations).

The estimated weighted-average AD margins and cash deposit rates are as follows:

This notice constitutes the AD orders with respect to wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the UAE, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD orders currently effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html. These orders are published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

Background

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on November 29, 2017, Commerce published its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of tool chests from China.1

On January 16, 2018, the ITC notified Commerce of its affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from China.2

The scope of this order covers tool chests from China. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Appendix to this notice.

On January 16, 2018, in accordance with sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of tool chests from China.3 Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce is issuing this countervailing duty order. Because the ITC determined that imports of tool chests from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of countervailing duties.

Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties for all relevant entries of tool chests from China. Countervailing duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of tool chests from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 15, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination 4 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination as further described below.

In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of tool chests from China. We will also instruct CBP to require, pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the net countervailable subsidy rates for the subject merchandise. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. The all-others rate applies to all producers and exporters of subject merchandise not listed in the following table.

Section 703(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. In the underlying investigation, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination on September 15, 2017. As such, the four-month period beginning on the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination ended on January 12, 2018. Furthermore, section 707(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act and our practice, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of tool chests from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, after January 12, 2018, the date the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register.

This notice constitutes the countervailing duty order with respect to tool chests from China pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

This order is issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

In accordance with Executive Order 12862, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a non-regulatory agency of the Department of Commerce, proposes to conduct a number of individual information collections that are both quantitative and qualitative. The information collections will be designed to determine the type and quality of the products, services, and information our key customers want and expect, as well as their satisfaction with and awareness of existing products, services, and information. In addition, NIST proposes other customer service satisfaction data collections that include, but may not be limited to focus groups, reply cards that accompany product distributions, and Web-based surveys and dialog boxes that offer customers the opportunity to express their level of satisfaction with NIST products, services, and information and for ongoing dialogue with NIST. NIST will limit its inquiries to data collections that solicit voluntary options and will not collect information that is required or regulated. No assurances of confidentiality will be given. However, it will be completely optional for survey participants to provide their name or affiliation information if they wish to provide comments for which they elect to receive a response.

NIST will collect this information by electronic means, as well as by mail, fax, telephone, and person-to-person interactions.

OMB Control Number: 0693-0031.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Revision of a current information collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals, not-for-profit institution.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 120,000.

Less than 2 minutes for a response card, 2 hours for focus group participation. The average estimated response time for the completion of a collection instrument is expected to be less than 30 minutes per response(s).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15,000.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: None.

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.

Section 315 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1445A) allows the Secretary of Commerce to establish advisory councils to advise and make recommendations regarding the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries. Executive Order 13178 similarly established a Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Council pursuant to the NMSA for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve. In this Supplementary Information section, NOAA provides details regarding the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, the role of advisory councils, and contact information for each site.

ONMS serves as the trustee for a network of underwater parks encompassing more than 600,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington state to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. The network includes a system of 13 national marine sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea and Rose Atoll marine national monuments. National marine sanctuaries protect our nation's most vital coastal and marine natural and cultural resources, and through active research, management, and public engagement, sustain healthy environments that are the foundation for thriving communities and stable economies.

One of the many ways ONMS ensures public participation in the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries is through the formation of advisory councils. Advisory councils are community-based advisory groups established to provide advice and recommendations to ONMS on issues including management, science, service, and stewardship; and to serve as liaisons between their constituents in the community and the site. Additional information on ONMS and its advisory councils can be found at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov.

Under Section 315 of the NMSA, advisory council members may be appointed from among: (1.) Persons employed by federal or state agencies with expertise in management of natural resources; (2.) members of relevant regional fishery management councils; and (3.) representatives of local user groups, conservation and other public interest organizations, scientific organizations, educational organizations, or others interested in the protection and multiple use management of sanctuary resources. For the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council, Executive Order 13178 Section 5(f) specifically identifies member and representative categories.

The charter for each advisory council defines the number and type of seats and positions on the council; however, as a general matter, available seats could include: Conservation, education, research, fishing, whale watching, diving and other recreational activities, boating and shipping, tourism, harbors and ports, maritime business, agriculture, maritime heritage, and citizen-at-large.

For each of the 14 advisory councils, applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; views regarding the protection and management of marine or Great Lakes resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the site. Applicants chosen as members or alternates should expect to serve two or three-year terms, pursuant to the charter of the specific national marine sanctuary advisory council or Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council.

More information on advisory council membership and processes, and materials related to the purpose, policies, and operational requirements for advisory councils can be found in the charter for a particular advisory council (http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/ac/council_charters.html) and the National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Implementation Handbook (http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/ac/acref.html).

• Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, University of California, Santa Barbara, Ocean Science Education Building 514, MC 6155, Santa Barbara, CA 93106; 805-893-6437; http://channelislands.noaa.gov/sac/council_news.html.

• Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, P.O. Box 159, Olema, CA 94950; 415-464-5260; http://cordellbank.noaa.gov/council/applicants.html.

• Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 33 East Quay Road, Key West, FL 33040; 305-809-4700; http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/sac/apps.html.

• Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, 4700 Avenue U, Building 216, Galveston, TX 77551; 409-621-5151; http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/advisorycouncil/recruitment.html.

• Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, 10 Ocean Science Circle, Savannah, GA 31411; 912-598-2345; http://graysreef.noaa.gov/management/sac/council_news.html.

• Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, 991 Marine Drive, The Presidio, San Francisco, CA 94129; 415-561-6622; http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/sac_recruitment.html.

• Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA Inouye Regional Center, NOS/ONMS/HIHWNMS, 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; 808-879-2818; http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/council/council_app_accepting.html.

• Monitor National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, 100 Museum Drive, Newport News, VA 23606; 757-599-3122; http://monitor.noaa.gov/advisory/news.html.

• Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 99 Pacific Street, Building 455A, Monterey, CA 93940; 831-647-4201; http://montereybay.noaa.gov/sac/recruit.html.

• National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa Advisory Council: National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa, Tauese P.F. Sunia Ocean Center, P.O. Box 4318, Pago Pago, AS 96799; 684-633-6500; http://americansamoa.noaa.gov/council/recruitment.

• Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council: NOAA Inouye Regional Center, NOS/ONMS/PMNM, 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; 808-725-5800; http://www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/new-about/council/apply/.

• Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 115 East Railroad Avenue, Suite 301, Port Angeles, WA 98362; 360-457-6622; http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/involved/sac/recruitment.html.

• Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, 175 Edward Foster Road, Scituate, MA 02066; 781-545-8026; http://stellwagen.noaa.gov/management/sac/recruitment.html.

• Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 500 West Fletcher Street, Alpena, MI 49707; 989-356-8805; http://thunderbay.noaa.gov/management/advisory_council_recruitment.html.

At its September 2018 meeting, the Pacific Council decided to embark on the Climate and Communities Initiative pursuant to its Fishery Ecosystem Plan. The purpose of this initiative is to help the Pacific Council, its advisory bodies, and the public to better understand the effects of near-term climate shift and long-term climate change on our fish, fisheries, and fishing communities and identify ways in which the Council could incorporate such understanding into its decision-making. As a first step, the Council's Ad Hoc Ecosystem Workgroup is working with scientists at NMFS Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers to present a series of webinars to educate the Pacific Council, advisory bodies, and the interested public about current research and forecasts related to the effects of climate variability/change on the California Current Ecosystem.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2411 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.

Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved state and territorial coastal programs. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings.

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, non-government organizations (NGO's); International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion during the assessment webinar I are as follows:

1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the in-person workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.

2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 business days prior to each workshop.

NOAA Fisheries has issued a final rule requiring the use of electronic vessel trip reports (VTRs) by vessel owners/operators holding Federal charter or party permits for species managed by a Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council FMP while on trips carrying passengers for hire. Electronic VTRs must be submitted through a NOAA-approved software application within 48 hours following the completion of a fishing trip. Vessels with Federal charter or party permits for any of the following species will be bound by this rule:

This action takes effect March 12, 2018, and changes only the required method of transmitting VTRs and the submission date; the required data elements and all other existing reporting requirements will not change. These workshops will provide information and training on select systems in preparation for this action.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

At its September 2017 meeting, the Pacific Council decided to embark on the Climate and Communities Initiative pursuant to its Fishery Ecosystem Plan. The purpose of this initiative is to help the Pacific Council, its advisory bodies, and the public to better understand the effects of near-term climate shift and long-term climate change on our fish, fisheries, and fishing communities and identify ways in which the Council could incorporate such understanding into its decision-making. The EWG will be submitting a report to the Pacific Council at its March 2018 meeting with its recommendations on the development of this initiative. This webinar is an opportunity for members of other Pacific Council advisory bodies and the public to be briefed on the EWG's recommendations in preparation for the March Pacific Council meeting.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2411 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.

Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

I. Abstract

This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

This data collection project will be coordinated by the NOAA Marine Debris Program, and involve recreational and commercial vessels (respondents), shipboard observers (respondents), NGOs (respondents) as well as numerous experts on marine debris observations at sea. The Shipboard Observation Form for Floating Marine Debris was created based on methods used in studies of floating marine debris by established researchers, previous shipboard observational studies conducted at sea by NOAA, and the experience and input of recreational sailors. The goal of this form is to be able to calculate the density of marine debris within an area of a known size. Additionally, this form will help collect data on potential marine debris resulting from future severe marine debris generating events in order to better model movement of the debris as well as prepare (as needed) for debris arrival. This form may additionally be used to collect data on floating marine debris in any water body.

Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0644.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Individuals or households; not-for profit institutions; business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

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).

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (CE B4) (incidental harassment authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.

On September 26, 2017, NMFS received a request from PISCO for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to rocky intertidal monitoring surveys along the Oregon and California coasts. PISCO's request is for take of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii), and northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris). Take is anticipated to result from the specified activity by Level B harassment only. Neither PISCO nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

This proposed IHA would cover one year of a larger project for which PISCO obtained prior IHAs. This multiyear annual survey involves surveying rocky intertidal zones in a number of locations in Oregon and California. NMFS has previously issued five IHAs for this ongoing survey project (77 FR 72327, December 5, 2012; 78 FR 79403, December 30, 2013; 79 FR 73048, December 9, 2014; 81 FR 7319, February 2, 2016; 82 FR 12568, March 6, 2017). PISCO complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHAs and information regarding the most recent monitoring results may be found in the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section.

PISCO proposes to continue rocky intertidal monitoring work that has been ongoing for 20 years. PISCO focuses on understanding the nearshore ecosystems of the U.S. west coast through a number of interdisciplinary collaborations. The program integrates long-term monitoring of ecological and oceanographic processes at dozens of sites with experimental work in the lab and field. Research is conducted throughout the year along the California and Oregon coasts and will continue indefinitely. Researchers accessing and conducting research activities on the sites may occasionally cause behavioral disturbance (or Level B harassment) of three pinniped species. PISCO expects that the disturbance to pinnipeds from the research activities will be minimal and will be limited to Level B harassment.

PISCO's research is conducted throughout the year. Most sites are sampled one to two times per year over a 1-day period (4-6 hours per site) during a negative low tide series. Due to the large number of research sites, scheduling constraints, the necessity for negative low tides and favorable weather/ocean conditions, exact survey dates are variable and difficult to predict. Some sampling may occur in all months of the calendar year.

Sampling sites occur along the California and Oregon coasts. Community Structure Monitoring sites range from Ecola State Park near Cannon Beach, Oregon to Government Point located northwest of Santa Barbara, California. Biodiversity Survey sites extend from Ecola State Park south to Cabrillo National Monument in San Diego County, California. Exact locations of sampling sites can be found in Tables 1 and 2 of PISCO's application.

Community Structure Monitoring involves the use of permanent photoplot quadrats, which target specific algal and invertebrate assemblages (e.g. mussels, rockweeds, barnacles). Each photoplot is photographed and scored for percent cover. The Community Structure Monitoring approach is based largely on surveys that quantify the percent cover and distribution of algae and invertebrates that constitute these communities. This approach allows researchers to quantify both the patterns of abundance of targeted species, as well as characterize changes in the communities in which they reside. Such information provides managers with insight into the causes and consequences of changes in species abundance. There are a total of 48 Community Structure sites, each of which will be visited in 2018 under the proposed IHA and surveyed over a 1-day period during a low tide series one to two times a year.

Biodiversity Surveys are part of a long-term monitoring project and are conducted every 3-5 years across 142 established sites. Nineteen Biodiversity Survey sites will be visited in 2018. These Biodiversity Surveys involve point contact identification along permanent transects, mobile invertebrate quadrat counts, sea star band counts, and tidal height topographic measurements. Five of the Biodiversity Survey sites are also Community Structure sites, leaving 14 sites that are only Biodiversity Survey sites. As such, a total of 62 unique sites would be visited under the proposed IHA.

The intertidal zones where PISCO conducts intertidal monitoring are also areas where pinnipeds can be found hauled out on the shore at or adjacent to some research sites. Pinnipeds have been recorded at 17 out of the 62 survey sites. Accessing portions of the intertidal habitat at these locations may cause incidental Level B (behavioral) harassment of pinnipeds through some unavoidable approaches if pinnipeds are hauled out directly in the study plots or while biologists walk from one location to another. No motorized equipment is involved in conducting these surveys.

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

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

Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence at survey sites in California and Oregon and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. Managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. 2016 Pacific Marine Mammal SARs (Carretta et al., 2016). Information on Steller sea lions came from the Alaska Marine Mammal SARs (Muto et al., 2016) All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2016 SARs (Carretta et al., 2016; Muto et al., 2016) (available online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm).

All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Table 1. As described below, all four species temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing it. However, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of Steller sea lions is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here. Past monitoring reports have not typically reported Steller sea lion observations. The last reported observation of Steller sea lions occurred in 2009 when five Steller sea lions were seen at the Cape Arago, OR site.

Northern elephant seals range widely throughout the eastern Pacific for most of the year to forage. They return to haul-out locations along the west coast of the continental United States including the Channel Islands, the central California coast, and islands off Baja California to breed and molt. Breeding occurs from December through early spring, with males returning to haul-out locations earlier than females to establish dominance hierarchies. Molting occurs from late April to August, with juveniles and adult females returning earlier than adult males (Reeves et al., 2002). Due to very little movement between colonies in Mexico and those in California, the California population is considered to be a separate stock (Carretta et al., 2010).

This species was hunted by indigenous peoples for several thousand years and by commercial sealers in the 1800s. By the late 1800s, the species was thought to be extinct, although several were seen on Guadalupe Island in the 1880s and a few dozen to several hundred survived off of Mexico (Stewart et al., 1994). The population began increasing in the early 1900s and progressively colonized southern and central California through the 1980s (Reeves et al., 2002).

According to the 2015 Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessment, the minimum population size of the California stock is 81,368 individuals and the estimated population size is 179,000 (Carretta et al., 2016, Lowry et al., 2014). This species has grown at 3.8 percent annually since 1988 (Lowry et al., 2014). Northern elephant seals are not listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and are not a strategic species nor considered depleted under the MMPA.

California sea lions are distributed along the west coast of North America from British Columbia to Baja California and throughout the Gulf of California. Breeding occurs on offshore islands along the west coast of Baja California and the Gulf of California as well as on the California Channel Islands. There are three recognized California sea lion stocks (U.S. stock, Western Baja stock, and the Gulf of California stock) with the U.S. stock ranging from the U.S./Mexico border into Canada. Although there is some movement between stocks, U.S. rookeries are considered to be isolated from rookeries off of Baja California (Barlow et al., 1995).

California sea lions were hunted for several thousand years by indigenous peoples and early hunters. In the early 1900s, sea lions were killed in an effort to reduce competition with commercial fisheries. They were also hunted commercially from the 1920-1940s. Following the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972, as well as limits on killing and harassment in Mexico, the population has rapidly increased (Reeves et al., 2002). Declines in pup production did occur during the 1983-84, 1992-93, 1997-98, and 2003 El Niño events, but production returned to pre-El Niño levels within 2-5 years (Carretta et al., 2016). In 2013, NOAA declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME) due to the elevated number of sea lion pup strandings in southern California. The cause of this event is thought to be nutritional stress related to declines in prey availability. This UME has continued through 2016 (NMFS 2016). According to the 2015 Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessment, California sea lions have a minimum population size of 153,337 individuals and the population is estimated to number 296,750 (Carretta et al., 2016). This species is not listed under the ESA and is not a strategic species nor considered depleted under the MMPA.

Pacific harbor seals are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, nor are they categorized as depleted under the MMPA. The most recent census of the California stock of harbor seals occurred in 2012 during which 20,109 hauled-out harbor seals were counted. A 1999 census of the Oregon/Washington harbor seal stock found 16,165 individuals, of which 5,735 were in Oregon (Carretta et al., 2016). The population is estimated to number 30,968 individuals in California and 24,732 individuals in Oregon/Washington (Carretta et al., 2016). At several sites, harbor seals are often observed and have the potential to be disturbed by researchers accessing or sampling the site. The largest number of harbor seals occurs at Hopkins in Monterey, CA where often 20-30 adults and occasionally 10-15 pups are hauled-out on a small beach adjacent to the site.

The animals inhabit near-shore coastal and estuarine areas from Baja California, Mexico, to the Pribilof Islands in Alaska. Pacific harbor seals are divided into two subspecies: P. v. stejnegeri in the western North Pacific, near Japan, and P. v. richardii in the northeast Pacific Ocean. The latter subspecies, recognized as three separate stocks, inhabits the west coast of the continental United States, including the outer coastal waters of Oregon and Washington states, Washington state inland waters and Alaska coastal and inland waters.

In California, over 500 harbor seal haulout sites are widely distributed along the mainland and offshore islands, and include rocky shores, beaches and intertidal sandbars (Lowry et al., 2005). Harbor seals mate at sea, and females give birth during the spring and summer, although, the pupping season varies with latitude. Pups are nursed for an average of 24 days and are ready to swim minutes after being born. Harbor seal pupping takes place at many locations, and rookery size varies from a few pups to many hundreds of pups. Pupping generally occurs between March and June, and molting occurs between May and July.

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

The appearance of researchers may have the potential to cause Level B behavioral harassment of any pinnipeds hauled out at sampling sites. Although marine mammals are never deliberately approached by survey personnel, approach may be unavoidable if pinnipeds are hauled out in the immediate vicinity of the permanent study plots. Disturbance may result in reactions ranging from an animal simply becoming alert to the presence of researchers (e.g., turning the head, assuming a more upright posture) to flushing from the haul-out site into the water. NMFS does not consider the lesser reactions to constitute behavioral harassment, or Level B harassment takes, but rather assumes that pinnipeds that flee some distance or change the speed or direction of their movement in response to the presence of researchers are behaviorally harassed, and thus subject to Level B taking. Animals that respond to the presence of researchers by becoming alert, but do not move or change the nature of locomotion as described, are not considered to have been subject to behavioral harassment.

Numerous studies have shown that human activity can flush harbor seals off haulout sites (Allen et al., 1985; Calambokidis et al., 1991; Suryan and Harvey, 1999). The Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi) has been shown to avoid beaches that have been disturbed often by humans (Kenyon 1972). Moreover, in one case human disturbance appeared to cause Steller sea lions to desert a breeding area at Northeast Point on St. Paul Island, Alaska (Kenyon 1962).

There are three ways in which disturbance, as described previously, could result in more than Level B harassment of marine mammals. All three are most likely to be consequences of stampeding, a potentially dangerous occurrence in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and rush away from a stimulus. The three situations are (1) falling when entering the water at high-relief locations; (2) extended separation of mothers and pups; and (3) crushing of elephant seal pups by large males during a stampede. Note, however, that PISCO researchers have only recorded one instance of stampeding which occurred in 2013.

Because hauled-out animals may move towards the water when disturbed, there is the risk of injury if animals stampede towards shorelines with precipitous relief (e.g., cliffs). Shoreline habitats near the survey areas tend to consist of steeply sloping rocks with unimpeded and non-obstructive access to the water. Disturbed, hauled-out animals in these situations are likely to move toward the water slowly without risk of unexpectedly falling off cliffs or encountering barriers or hazards or that would otherwise prevent them from leaving the area. Therefore, research activity poses no risk that disturbed animals may fall and be injured or killed as a result of disturbance at high-relief locations.

Few pups are anticipated to be encountered during the proposed monitoring surveys. A small number of harbor seal, northern elephant seal and California sea lion pups, however, have been observed during past years. Though elephant seal pups are occasionally present when researchers visit survey sites, risk of pup mortalities is very low because elephant seals are far less reactive to researcher presence than the other two species. Harbor seals are very precocious with only a short period of time in which separation of a mother from a pup could occur. Pups are also typically found on sand beaches, while study sites are located in the rocky intertidal zone, meaning that there is typically a buffer between researchers and pups. Finally, the caution used by researchers in approaching sites generally precludes the possibility of behavior, such as stampeding, that could result in extended separation of mothers and dependent pups or trampling of pups.

The only habitat modification associated with the proposed activity is the placement of permanent bolts and other temporary sampling equipment in the intertidal zone. Once a particular study has ended, the respective sampling equipment is removed. No trash or field gear is left at a site. Sampling activities are also not expected to result in any long-term modifications of haulout use or abandonment of haulouts since these sites are only visited 1-2 times per year, which minimizes repeated disturbances. During periods of low tide (e.g., when tides are 0.6 m (2 ft) or less and low enough for pinnipeds to haul-out), we would expect the pinnipeds to return to the haulout site within 60 minutes of the disturbance (Allen et al., 1985). The effects to pinnipeds appear at the most to displace the animals temporarily from their haul out sites, and we do not expect that the pinnipeds would permanently abandon a haul-out site during the conduct of rocky intertidal surveys. Additionally, impacts to prey species from survey activities are not anticipated. Thus, the proposed activity is not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

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

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

Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to researchers. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.

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

In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. Take estimates are based on historical marine mammal observations at each site from previous PISCO survey activities. Marine mammal observations are done as part of PISCO site observations, which include notes on physical and biological conditions at the site. The maximum number of marine mammals, by species, seen at any given time throughout the sampling day is recorded at the conclusion of sampling. A marine mammal is counted if it is seen on access ways to the site, at the site, or immediately up-coast or down-coast of the site. Marine mammals in the water immediately offshore are also recorded. Any other relevant information, including the location of a marine mammal relevant to the site, any unusual behavior, and the presence of pups is also noted.

The observations described above formed the basis from which researchers with extensive knowledge and experience at each site estimated the actual number of marine mammals that may be subject to take. Take estimates for each species for which take would be authorized were based on the following equation:

For take estimates, PISCO looked at sites that have consistently had a marine mammal presence and used the maximum number of marine mammals previously observed at these sites that could be subject to take (e.g. pinnipeds on the site, nearby, or along access ways and not including any pinnipeds in the water or on offshore rocks). At many sites, the number of marine mammals is quite variable and PISCO may observe fewer than the number used for take estimates. There are also limited occasions where PISCO observes pinnipeds at sites where they had not previously seen any.

Individual species' totals for each survey site were summed to arrive at a total estimated take number. Numbers are rounded up to the nearest value of 5 (e.g., a maximum of 7 observed animals would be rounded up to 10). Section 6 in PISCO's application outlines the number of visits per year for each sampling site and the potential number of pinnipeds anticipated to be encountered at each site. Tables 2, 3, 4 in PISCO's application outlines the number of potential takes per site.

Harbor seals are expected to occur at 15 locations with expected taken numbers ranging from 5 to 25 animals per visit (Table 2 in PISCO's application). These locations will be subject to 21 site visits under the proposed IHA. It is anticipated that there will be 190 takes of adult harbor seals and 13 takes of weaned pups. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize the take of up to 203 harbor seals.

California sea lions are expected to be present at five sites with eight scheduled visits as shown in Table 3 in the application. Eighty-five adult and five pups are expected to be taken. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize the take of 90 California sea lions.

Northern elephant seals are only expected to occur at one site this year, Piedras Blancs, which will experience two separate visits (See Table 4 in application). Up to 10 adult and 40 weaned pup takes are anticipated. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize the take of up to 50 northern elephant seals.

NMFS proposes to authorize the take, by Level B harassment only, of 203 harbor seals, 90 California sea lions, and 50 northern elephant seals. These numbers are considered to be maximum take estimates; therefore, actual take may be less if animals decide to haul out at a different location for the day or animals are out foraging at the time of the survey activities.

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

In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:

(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and

(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

PISCO will implement several mitigation measures to reduce potential take by Level B (behavioral disturbance) harassment. Measures are listed below.

• Researchers will observe a site from a distance, using binoculars if necessary, to detect any marine mammals prior to approach to determine if mitigation is required (i.e., site surveys will not be conducted if Steller sea lions are present; if other pinnipeds are present, researchers will approach with caution, walking slowly, quietly, and close to the ground to avoid surprising any hauled-out individuals and to reduce flushing/stampeding of individuals).

• Researchers will avoid pinnipeds along access ways to sites by locating and taking a different access way. Researchers will keep a safe distance from and not approach any marine mammal while conducting research, unless it is absolutely necessary to flush a marine mammal in order to continue conducting research (i.e. if a site cannot be accessed or sampled due to the presence of pinnipeds).

• Researchers will avoid making loud noises (i.e., using hushed voices) and keep bodies low to the ground in the visual presence of pinnipeds.

• Researches will monitor the offshore area for predators (such as killer whales and white sharks) and avoid flushing of pinnipeds when predators are observed in nearshore waters. Note that PISCO has never observed an offshore predator while researchers were present at any of the survey sites.

• Intentional flushing will not occur if dependent pups are present to avoid mother/pup separation and trampling of pups. Staff shall reschedule work at sites where pups are present, unless other means of accomplishing the work can be done without causing disturbance to mothers and dependent pups.

• To avoid take of Steller sea lions, any site where they are present will not be approached and will be sampled at a later date. Note that observation of sea lions at survey sites is extremely rare.

• Researchers will promptly vacate sites at the conclusion of sampling.

The primary method of mitigating the risk of disturbance to pinnipeds, which will be in use at all times, is the selection of judicious routes of approach to study sites, avoiding close contact with pinnipeds hauled out on shore, and the use of extreme caution upon approach. Each visit to a given study site will last for approximately 4-6 hours, after which the site is vacated and can be re-occupied by any marine mammals that may have been disturbed by the presence of researchers. Also, by arriving before low tide, worker presence will tend to encourage pinnipeds to move to other areas for the day before they haul out and settle onto rocks at low tide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

PISCO will contribute to the knowledge of pinnipeds in California and Oregon by noting observations of: (1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and (3) rare or unusual species of marine mammals for agency follow-up.

Proposed monitoring requirements in relation to PISCO's rocky intertidal monitoring will include observations made by the applicant. Information recorded will include species counts (with numbers of pups/juveniles when possible) of animals present before approaching, numbers of observed disturbances, and descriptions of the disturbance behaviors during the monitoring surveys, including location, date, and time of the event. For consistency, any reactions by pinnipeds to researchers will be recorded according to a three-point scale shown in Table 2. Note that only observations of disturbance Levels 2 and 3 should be recorded as takes.

In addition, observations regarding the number and species of any marine mammals observed, either in the water or hauled-out, at or adjacent to a site, are recorded as part of field observations during research activities. Information regarding physical and biological conditions pertaining to a site, as well as the date and time that research was conducted are also noted. This information will be incorporated into a monitoring report for NMFS.

If at any time the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, PISCO shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:

(1) Time and date of the incident;

(2) Description of the incident;

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

(4) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

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

(6) Fate of the animal(s); and

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

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

In the event that an injured or dead marine mammal is discovered and it is determined that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), PISCO shall immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with PISCO to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.

In the event that an injured or dead marine mammal is discovered and it is determined that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), PISCO shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. PISCO shall provide photographs, video footage or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

A draft final report must be submitted to NMFS Office of Protected Resources within 60 days after the conclusion of the 2018 field season or 60 days prior to the start of the next field season if a new IHA will be requested. The report will include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the IHA. A final report must be submitted to the Director of the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and to the NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft final report. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft final report will be considered the final report.

PISCO complied with the mitigation and monitoring that were required under the IHA issued in February 2016. In compliance with the IHA, PISCO submitted a report detailing the activities and marine mammal monitoring they conducted. The IHA required PISCO to conduct counts of pinnipeds present at study sites prior to approaching the sites and to record species counts and any observed reactions to the presence of the researchers.

From December 3, 2016, through February 2, 2017 researchers conducted rocky intertidal sampling at numerous sites in California and Oregon (see Table 12 in PISCO's 2016 monitoring report). Tables 7, 8, and 9 in PISCO's monitoring report outline marine mammal observations and reactions. During this period there were 96 takes of harbor seals, 1 take of California sea lions, and 22 takes of northern elephant seals. NMFS had authorized the take of 203 harbor seals, 720 California sea lions, and 40 Northern Elephant seals under that IHA. PISCO also submitted a preliminary monitoring report associated with the existing IHA for the period covering February 21, 2017 through November 30, 2017. PISCO recorded 63 takes of harbor seals and 3 takes of California sea lions. There were no takes of northern elephant seals. NMFS had authorized the take of 233 harbor seals, 90 California sea lions, and 60 northern elephant seals under the existing IHA.

Based on the results from the monitoring report, we conclude that these results support our original findings that the mitigation measures set forth in the 2016 and 2017 IHAs effected the least practicable impact on the species or stocks. There were no stampede events during these years and most disturbances were Level 1 and 2 from the disturbance scale (Table 2) meaning the animal did not fully flush but observed or moved slightly in response to researchers. Those that did fully flush to the water did so slowly. Most of these animals tended to observe researchers from the water and then re-haulout farther up-coast or down-coast of the site within approximately 30 minutes of the disturbance.

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

No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of PISCO's rocky intertidal monitoring surveys and none are proposed to be authorized. The risk of marine mammal injury, serious injury, or mortality associated with rocky intertidal monitoring increases somewhat if disturbances occur during breeding season. These situations present increased potential for mothers and dependent pups to become separated and, if separated pairs do not quickly reunite, the risk of mortality to pups (e.g., through starvation) may increase. Separately, adult male elephant seals may trample elephant seal pups if disturbed, which could potentially result in the injury, serious injury, or mortality of the pups. Few pups are anticipated to be encountered during the proposed surveys. As shown in previous monitoring reports, however, limited numbers of harbor seal, northern elephant seal, and California sea lion pups have been observed at several sites during past years. Harbor seals are very precocious with only a short period of time in which separation of a mother from a pup could occur. Although elephant seal pups are occasionally present when researchers visit survey sites, risk of pup mortalities is very low because elephant seals are far less reactive to researcher presence compared to the other two species. Further, elephant seal pups are typically found on sand beaches, while study sites are located in the rocky intertidal zone, meaning that there is typically a buffer between researchers and pups. The caution used by researchers in approaching sites generally precludes the possibility of behavior, such as stampeding, that could result in extended separation of mothers and dependent pups or trampling of pups. Finally, no research would occur where separation of mother and her nursing pup or crushing of pups can become a concern.

Typically, even those reactions constituting Level B harassment would result at most in temporary, short-term behavioral disturbance. In any given study season, researchers will visit select sites one to two times per year for 4-6 hours per visit. Therefore, disturbance of pinnipeds resulting from the presence of researchers lasts only for short periods. These short periods of disturbance lasting less than a day are separated by months or years. Community structure sites are visited at most twice per year and the visits occur in different seasons. Biodiversity surveys take place at a given location once every 3-5 years.

Of the marine mammal species anticipated to occur in the proposed activity areas, none are listed under the ESA. Taking into account the planned mitigation measures, effects to marine mammals are generally expected to be restricted to short-term changes in behavior or temporary abandonment of haulout sites, pinnipeds are not expected to permanently abandon any area that is surveyed by researchers, as is evidenced by continued presence of pinnipeds at the sites during annual monitoring counts. No adverse effects to prey species are anticipated and habitat impacts are limited and highly localized, consisting of the placement of permanent bolts in the intertidal zone. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from PISCO's rocky intertidal monitoring program will not adversely affect annual rates of recruitment or survival and, therefore, will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

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

• No pinniped mortality is anticipated or authorized;

• Only a small number of pups are expected to be disturbed;

• Effects of the survey activities would be limited to short-term, localized behavioral changes;

• Nominal impacts to pinniped habitat; and

• Effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.

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

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

Table 3 presents the abundance of each species or stock, the proposed take estimates, and the percentage of the affected populations or stocks that may be taken by Level B harassment. The numbers of animals authorized to be taken would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (0.65−0.82 percent for harbor seals, and <0.01 percent for California sea lions and northern elephant seals).

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

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

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

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

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to PISCO for conducting the described research activities related to rocky intertidal monitoring surveys along the Oregon and Washington coasts provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).

1. This IHA is valid from February 21, 2018 through February 20, 2019.

2. This IHA is valid only for specified activities associated with rocky intertidal monitoring surveys at specific sites along the California and Oregon coasts.

3. General Conditions

a. A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of personnel operating under the authority of this authorization.

b. The incidental taking of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the following species along the Oregon and California coasts:

i. 203 harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii);

ii. 90 California sea lion (Zalophus californianus);

iii. 50 northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris); and

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

4. Mitigation Measures: The holder of this IHA is required to implement the following mitigation measures:

a. Researchers shall observe a site from a distance, using binoculars if necessary, to detect any marine mammals prior to approach to determine if mitigation is required.

b. Researchers shall approach a site with caution (slowly and quietly), keep bodies low to the ground and avoid pinnipeds along access ways to sites, by locating and taking a different access way if possible.

c. Researchers shall keep a safe distance from and not approach any marine mammal while conducting research, unless it is absolutely necessary to flush a marine mammal in order to continue conducting research (i.e. if a site cannot be accessed or sampled due to the presence of pinnipeds).

d. Researchers shall monitor the offshore area for predators (such as killer whales and white sharks) and avoid flushing of pinnipeds when predators are observed in nearshore waters.

e. Intentional flushing shall be avoided if pups are present. Staff shall reschedule work at sites where pups are present, unless other means of accomplishing the work can be done without causing disturbance to mothers and dependent pups.

f. Any site where Steller sea lions are present shall not be approached and shall be sampled at a later date.

g. Personnel shall vacate the study area as soon as sampling of the site is completed.

5. Monitoring: The holder of this IHA is required to conduct monitoring of marine mammals present at study sites prior to approaching the sites.

a. Information to be recorded shall include the following:

i. Species counts (with numbers of pups/juveniles);

ii. Descriptions of the disturbance behaviors during the monitoring surveys, including location, date, and time of the event;

iii. Information regarding physical and biological conditions pertaining to a site; and

iv. Numbers of disturbances, by species and age, according to a three-point scale of intensity as described in Table 2. Observations of disturbance Levels 2 and 3 are recorded as takes.

6. Reporting: The holder of this IHA is required to:

a. Report observations of unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, or of tag-bearing carcasses, to NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC).

b. Submit a draft monitoring report to NMFS Office of Protected Resources within 60 days after the conclusion of the 2018 field season or 60 days prior to the start of the next field season if a new IHA shall be requested. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of any comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational elements described above, at minimum.

c. Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:

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

(1) Time and date of the incident;

(2) Description of the incident;

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

(4) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

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

(6) Fate of the animal(s); and

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

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

ii. In the event that an injured or dead marine mammal is discovered and it is determined that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), PISCO shall immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the same information identified in 6(c)(i) of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS shall work with PISCO to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.

iii. In the event that an injured or dead marine mammal is discovered and it is determined that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), PISCO shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. PISCO shall provide photographs, video footage or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

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

We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed rocky intertidal monitoring program. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.

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

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

• The request for renewal must include the following:

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

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

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

Background

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 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 July 14, 2017, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile extraction, and drilling associated with an ongoing waterfront improvement project at the Shipyard. The application was considered adequate and complete on August 25, 2017. The Navy's request is for take of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), gray seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) and hooded seal (Cystophora cristata), by Level A and Level B harassment (authorization of Level A harassment is not proposed for the harp seal or hooded seal). Neither the Navy nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

This IHA will cover the second year of a five-year project for which the Navy had previously obtained an IHA. The Navy intends to request take authorization for subsequent years of the project. NMFS previously issued the first IHA to the Navy for this project effective from January 8, 2018 through January 7, 2019. The larger 5-year project involves restoring and modernizing infrastructure at the Shipyard. The Navy complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHA and information regarding their monitoring results may be found in the Monitoring and Reporting section.

The purpose of the proposed action is to modernize and maximize dry dock capabilities for performing current and future missions efficiently and with maximum flexibility. The need for the proposed action is to correct deficiencies associated with the pier structure at Berths 11, 12, and 13 and the Dry Dock 3 caisson and concrete seats to ensure that the Shipyard can continue to support its primary mission to service, maintain, and overhaul submarines. The proposed action covers the second year of activities (January 3, 2018 through January 2, 2019) associated with the waterfront improvement projects at the Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. The project includes impact and vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and drilling. Construction activities may occur at any time during the calendar year. A detailed description of the planned waterfront improvement project was provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 56791; November 30, 2017). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned waterfront improvement activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity.

Table 1 shows a summary of the anticipated work effort (e.g., days) and numbers planned for installation/extraction of each pile type while Table 2 shows estimated hours for each type of pile driving and drilling activity.

A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the Navy was published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2017 (82 FR 56791). That notice described, in detail, the Navy's activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).

Comment 1: The Commission listed four issues that need to be resolved prior to issuance of the final IHA including:

• Increasing the estimated Level A harassment takes for harbor porpoises from one to two to account for group size;

• increasing the estimated Level B harassment takes for harp seals from one to five to account for the potential that harp seals could be present on multiple days during the five months when they are most likely to occur in the project area;

• authorizing Level B harassment takes of five hooded seals to account for the potential that hooded seals could be present on multiple days during the five months when they are most likely to occur in the project area; and

• clarifying or specifying various mitigation and monitoring measure requirements.

Response: NMFS has agreed to make the changes described above. These changes are included in the issued IHA.

Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS share the rounding criteria with the Commission such that the matter of when rounding should occur in the take calculation can be resolved in the near future.

Response: NMFS will share the rounding criteria with the Commission in the near future and looks forward to working with them to resolve this issue.

Comment 3: The Commission stated that monitoring during all pile-driving and removal activities is necessary for NMFS and the Navy to be confident that mitigation measures are implemented as intended, the numbers of marine mammals taken are within the limits authorized, and the least practicable impact occurs. The Commission recommended that NMFS require the Navy to implement full-time monitoring of the full extents of various Level A and B harassment zones using two protected species observers (PSOs) during all pile-driving (including drilling rock sockets) and removal activities.

Response: NMFS has authorized the employment of a single PSO on one-third of driving days to monitor the shutdown and Level A zones Two PSOs will be employed on two-thirds of driving days to monitor shutdown, Level A and Level B zones. NMFS is confident that a single qualified PSO can effectively monitor shutdown and Level A zones during all pile driving and removal activities. A single observer will have a complete, unobstructed view of the entirety of shutdown and Level A zones and will be able to document takes and call for shutdown or delay as appropriate. Adding a second PSO on two-thirds of driving days for Level B zone monitoring provides the capability to ensure successful implementation of mitigation measures and document that authorized take limits are not exceeded. Note that under previously issued IHAs, NMFS has not required 100 percent monitoring of Level B zones. In these instances, NMFS found that mitigation measures were effectively employed and marine mammal takes were under authorized limits.

Comment 4: The Commission reviewed the marine mammal and hydroacoustic monitoring plan and provided extensive comments to NMFS during the public comment period. The Commission's submitted comment letter features an Addendum listing all of the issues that were raised. The Commission recommends that NMFS ensure that all issues summarized in the Addendum are addressed and incorporated either into the final marine mammal and hydroacoustic monitoring plan or the incidental harassment authorization itself.

Response: NMFS will address and incorporate resolutions to issues identified in the Addendum into the final marine mammal and hydroacoustic monitoring plan.

Comment 5: The Commission expressed concern about the lack of adequate time to provide public comments as well as the abbreviated timeframes during which NMFS is able to address public comments. The Commission recommended that NMFS ensure that it publishes and finalizes proposed incidental harassment authorizations sufficiently before the planned start date of the proposed activities to ensure full consideration is given to all comments received.

Response: NMFS will work to provide adequate time for public comment and response. NMFS will also seek to process IHA applications in a more expeditious manner.

Five marine mammal species, including one cetacean and four pinnipeds, may inhabit or transit the waters near the Shipyard in the lower Piscataqua River during the specified activity. These include the harbor porpoise, gray seal, harbor seal, hooded seal, and harp seal. None of the marine mammals that may be found in the Piscataqua River are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Table 3 lists the marine mammal species that could occur near the Shipyard and their estimated densities within the project area. As there are no specific density data for any of the species in the Piscataqua River, density data from the nearshore zone outside the mouth the Piscataqua River in the Atlantic Ocean have been used instead. Therefore, it can be assumed that the density estimates presented here for each species are conservative and higher than densities that would typically be expected in an industrialized, estuarine environment such as the lower Piscataqua River in the vicinity of the Shipyard.

Detailed descriptions of the of the species likely to be affected by the Navy's project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (November 30, 2017;82 FR 56791); since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/) for generalized species accounts.

The effects of underwater noise from the Navy's construction activities for the waterfront improvement project have the potential to result in Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) for marine mammal species authorized for take. Level A (injury) harassment in the form of permanent threshold shift (PTS) may also occur in limited numbers of animals. The project would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, such as haulout sites, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish and minor impacts to the immediate substrate during installation and removal of piles. The potential effects to marine mammals and their associated habitat are discussed in detail in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (November 30, 2017; 82 FR 56791), therefore that information is not repeated here; please refer to that Federal Register notice for that information.

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes that NMFS has authorized through this IHA, which informed NMFS' consideration of both “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 Level B harassment, as impact and vibratory pile driving as well as drilling have the potential to result in auditory injury and disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. The required mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable.

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

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

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

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

The Navy's planned activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving, drilling) 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). As noted above, the Navy's planned activity includes both impulsive and non-impulsive sources.

These thresholds are provided in Table 4. 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.

Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. 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]). Although cylindrical spreading loss was applied to driving of 14-inch H-piles in the previous IHA, in an effort to maintain consistency NMFS utilized practical spreading loss (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance) for all driving and drilling activities for this IHA. A practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions, such as at the Shipyard dock, where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions.

Underwater Sound—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. A number of studies have measured sound produced during underwater pile driving projects. These data are largely for impact driving of steel pipe piles and concrete piles as well as vibratory driving of steel pipe piles.

Source levels were collected for the four types of piles that would be installed and two pile-driving methods planned for the project:

1. 14-inch steel H-type piles—Used as sister piles and for SOE system installation; installed/extracted via vibratory hammer and seated as needed with impact hammer.

2. 15-inch timber piles—Used for re-installation of dolphins at Berths 11, 12, and 13 and extracted via vibratory hammer.

3. 25-inch steel sheet piles—Used for the bulkhead at Berth 11 and for SOE installed/extracted via vibratory hammer.

Reference source levels for the project were determined using data for piles of similar sizes, the same pile-driving method as that planned for the project, and at similar water depths. While the pile sizes and water depths chosen as proxies do not exactly match those for the project, they are the closest matches available, and it is assumed that the source levels shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7 are the most representative for each pile type and associated pile-driving method.

The intensity of pile driving or sounds is greatly influenced by factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical environment in which the activity takes place. Reference source levels for the planned project were determined using data for piles of similar sizes, the same pile driving method as that planned for the project, and at similar water depths. While the pile sizes and water depths chosen as proxies do not exactly match those for the project, they are the closest matches available, and it is assumed that the source levels shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7 and are the most representative for each pile type and associated pile driving method.

The Navy analyzed source level values associated with a number of projects involving impact driving of steel H-piles to approximate environmental conditions and driving parameters at the Shipyard (Caltrans 2015). Data from pertinent projects were used to obtain average SEL and rms values for H pile impact installation. To be sure all values were relevant to the site, the Navy eliminated all piles in waters greater than 5 m, as well as all readings measured at ranges greater than 10 m. The Navy used all H piles for which the diameter was not specified as well as the 14 to 15-inch H piles, converted the dB measurements to a linear scale before averaging, and re-converted the average measurements to the appropriate dB units. Piles driven at this project site will be driven in 0-11 feet of water (0-3.4 m). During low tide, piles will essentially be driven in the dry. This varies drastically from other Navy projects on the east coast, such as at the Naval Submarine Base New London, where 14-inch H piles will be driven in water depths of 25 feet (7.62 m). Results are shown in Table 5.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

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

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

• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2017 at Vol. 82, No. 189, Page 45832. This comment period ended December 1, 2017. Zero (0) public comments were received from this Notice.

Description: The forms are used to determine organizations' suitability to be AmeriCorps VISTA Sponsors, and once awarded a project, to gather information on their use of VISTA resources. CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection. The revisions are intended to clarify budget instructions. The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application expired on November 30, 2017.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Concept Paper, Application and Budget Instructions, Project Progress Report and Progress Report Supplement.

OMB Number: (OMB Control Number 3045-0038).

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Organizations and State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Total Respondents: 815.

Frequency: One time for the Concept Paper; annually for the Application with Budget Instructions and VISTA Progress Report Supplement; four times a year for the Progress Report in a project's first year and twice a year thereafter.

Average Time per Response: 15 hours (Application), 15 hours (VPR), 8 hours (VPRS).

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 13,040 hours (Application), 12,225 (VPR), 6,520 (VPRS).

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

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

Title of Collection: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Third Party Perjury Form.

OMB Control Number: 1880-0545.

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

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 62,000.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 31,000.

Abstract: This collection is necessary to certify the identity of individuals requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA). This certification is required under 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b). The form is used by Privacy Act requesters to obtain personal records via regular mail, fax or email. The department will use the information to help identify first-party or third party requesters with same or similar name when requesting retrieval of their own documents.

This solicitation of third-party comments concerning the performance of accrediting agencies under review by the Secretary is required by section 496(n)(1)(A) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended. These accrediting agencies will be on the agenda for the Spring 2018 National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity meeting. The meeting date has not been determined, but will be announced in a separate Federal Register notice.

Agencies Under Review and Evaluation: Below is a list of agencies currently undergoing review and evaluation by the Accreditation Group, including their current and requested scopes of recognition:

1. Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools. Requested Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of private postsecondary institutions offering certificates or diplomas, and postsecondary institutions offering associate, bachelor's, or master's degrees in programs designed to educate students for professional, technical, or occupational careers, including those that offer those programs via distance education.

1. Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, Accreditation Commission. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Correspondent” and “Candidate”) within the United States of advanced rabbinical and Talmudic schools.

2. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and pre-accreditation, within the United States, of Didactic and Coordinated Programs in Dietetics at both the undergraduate and graduate level, post-baccalaureate Dietetic Internships, and Dietetic Technician Programs at the associate degree level, and for its accreditation of such programs offered via distance education.

3. Accreditation Council on Optometric Education. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation in the United States of professional optometric degree programs, optometric technician (associate degree) programs, and optometric residency programs, and for the pre-accreditation category of Preliminary Approval for professional optometric degree programs.

4. Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of institutions and programs of nurse anesthesia at the post master's certificate, master's, or doctoral degree levels in the United States, and its territories, including programs offering distance education.

5. Liaison Committee on Medical Education. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of medical education programs within the United States leading to the M.D. degree.

6. Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidacy Status”) of postsecondary degree-granting educational institutions in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, and the accreditation of programs offered via distance education within these institutions.

7. National Association of Schools of Art and Design. Scope of Recognition: For the accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions and units offering art/design and art/design-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education.

1. American Psychological Association. Compliance report includes the following: (1) Findings identified in the September 22, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at: https://opeweb.ed.gov/aslweb/finalstaffreports.cfm, (2) Review under 34 CFR 602.19(a), and § 602.20(b).

Scope of Recognition: The accreditation in the United States of doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, school and combined professional-scientific psychology; doctoral internship programs in health service psychology; and postdoctoral residency programs in health service psychology. The preaccreditation in the United States of doctoral internship programs in health service psychology; and postdoctoral residency programs in health service psychology.

2. American Bar Association Compliance report includes the following: (1) Findings identified in the October 28, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at: https://opeweb.ed.gov/aslweb/finalstaffreports.cfm, (2) Review under 34 CFR 602.15(a)(1), § 602.15(a)(2), § 602.15(a)(3), § 602.16(a)(1)(viii), and § 602.17(b).

Scope of Recognition: The accreditation throughout the United States of programs in legal education that lead to the first professional degree in law as well as freestanding law schools offering such programs. This recognition also extends to the Accreditation Committee of the Section of Legal Education (Accreditation Committee) for decisions involving continued accreditation (referred to by the agency as “approval”) of law schools.

3. American Osteopathic Association, Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation Compliance report includes the following: (1) Findings identified in the October 28, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at: https://opeweb.ed.gov/aslweb/finalstaffreports.cfm, (2) Review under 34 CFR 602.11, § 602.13, § 602.15(a)(3), § 602.16(a)(1)(i), § 602.16(a)(1)(ii), § 602.16(a)(1)(iii), § 602.16(a)(1)(iv) § 602.16(a)(1)(v), § 602.16(a)(1)(vi), § 602.16(a)(1)(vii) § 602.16(a)(1)(viii) § 602.16(a)(1)(ix) § 602.16(a)(1)(x), § 602.16(a)(2), § 602.17(a), § 602.19(b), § 602.20(a), and § 602.26(b).

4. Transnational Association Of Christian Colleges and Schools Compliance report includes the following: (1) Findings identified in the October 28, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at: https://opeweb.ed.gov/aslweb/finalstaffreports.cfm, (2) Review under 34 CFR 602.15(a)(2), and § 602.19(b).

Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate” Status) of Christian postsecondary institutions in the United States that offer certificates, diplomas, and associate, baccalaureate, and graduate degrees, including institutions that offer distance education.

Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, Accreditation Commission. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Correspondent” and “Candidate”) within the United States of advanced rabbinical and Talmudic schools. Requested Scope: The accreditation of advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic institutions in the United States which grant postsecondary degrees such as Associate, Baccalaureate, Masters, Doctorate, First Rabbinic and First Talmudic degrees.

Puerto Rico State Agency for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Institutions and Programs

Written comments about the recognition of a specific accrediting or State agency must be received by February 16, 2018, in the [email protected] mailbox and include the subject line “Written Comments: (agency name).” The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the person(s) making the comment. Comments should be submitted as a Microsoft Word document or in a medium compatible with Microsoft Word (not a PDF file) that is attached to an electronic mail message (email) or provided in the body of an email message. Comments about an agency's recognition after review of a compliance report must relate to issues identified in the compliance report and the criteria for recognition cited in the senior Department official's letter that requested the report, or in the Secretary's appeal decision, if any. Comments about the renewal of an agency's recognition based on a review of the agency's petition must relate to its compliance with the Criteria for the Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, or the Criteria and Procedures for Recognition of State Agencies for Approval of Nurse Education as appropriate, which are available at http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html.

Only written material submitted by the deadline to the email address listed in this notice, and in accordance with these instructions, become part of the official record concerning agencies scheduled for review and are considered by the Department and NACIQI in their deliberations.

A later Federal Register Notice will describe how to register to provide oral comments at the meeting about the recognition of a specific accrediting agency or State approval agency.

Electronic Access to this Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Invitation to Comment: The Department invites you to submit comments regarding this proposed waiver and extension of the project period.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this proposed waiver and extension by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect all public comments about this proposal in Room 4W229, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

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

On February 23, 2015, the Department of Education (Department) published in the Federal Register (80 FR 9448) a notice inviting applications (2015 NIA) for a new award for FY 2015 under the OSP.

The OSP provides low-income students residing in Washington, DC with an opportunity to receive a scholarship to attend a participating private school of their choice. The OSP was established in 2004 under the DC School Choice Incentive Act. In 2011, Congress reauthorized the OSP through FY 2016 under the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act (SOAR Act) (Pub. L. 112-10); and, in FY 2017, the SOAR Act was reauthorized through FY 2019 by the FY 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 115-31).

Under the SOAR Act, the Department awards one grant to an eligible applicant to administer the OSP. The grant awarded is in the form of a cooperative agreement between the Department and the grantee. The grantee is required to recruit and make scholarship awards to eligible scholarship applicants; support and serve scholarship students and their families in making school choice decisions; identify and work with participating schools; monitor compliance of participating schools with program and reporting requirements; maintain reliable data regarding the operation of the program; and ensure appropriate coordination with the other entities that conduct activities related to program operations. The SOAR Act also provides for a performance period of up to five years for the OSP grant award.

The current OSP grantee was awarded with a three-year grant from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2018. The Department would typically conduct a new grant competition in FY 2018.

The Department seeks to extend the period of performance of the existing OSP grant for up to two more years and waive the provisions of 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c)(2) so that the current grantee may continue to receive additional funds to serve students in FY 2018 and FY 2019. The Department proposes this waiver based primarily on four factors. First, extending the current grantee's project would create stability and continuity as the program enters the final two years of the current SOAR Act authorization. Second, few organizations are eligible for and have the capacity to administer this program, which is evident by the small number of eligible applications that have been submitted under past OSP competitions. Third, extending the current grantee's project would permit the current grantee to fully implement the new recruitment and marketing strategies designed to significantly increase scholarship usage rates. The Department believes it is unlikely that a new program administrator could expeditiously and effectively implement the newly designed outreach efforts of the current grantee. Fourth, extending the current grantee's project would align the next OSP competition with the next anticipated reauthorization of the SOAR Act. Accordingly, the Department does not believe it would be in the public interest to hold a competition for a new OSP administrator before FY 2020.

If this proposed waiver becomes final through a notice of final waiver and extension of the project period published in the Federal Register—

• Any activities carried out during the extended project period would have to be consistent with, or a logical extension of, the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantee's application as approved in the 2015 competition;

• The requirements applicable to continuation awards for this competition set forth in the 2015 NIA and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253 would apply to any continuation award sought by the current grantee. We will base our decision regarding a continuation award on the program narrative, budget, budget narrative, and program performance report submitted by the current grantee for FY 2018, and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253; and

• The Department would not announce a new competition or make a new award under the OSP in FY 2018 or FY 2019.

The proposed waiver and project period extension would not exempt the current OSP grantee from the account-closing provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1552(a).

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

The small entity that would be affected by this proposed waiver and extension is the FY 2015 grantee, the non-profit organization currently receiving Federal funds under the OSP. The proposed waiver and extension would not have a significant economic impact on this entity because the activities required to support the additional year(s) of funding would not impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision. The waiver would impose minimal requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds, including requirements that are standard for continuation awards.

This notice of proposed waiver and extension does not contain any information collection requirements.

This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 79. One of the objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

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

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

Purpose of the Committee: The Electricity Advisory Committee (EAC) was re-established in July 2010, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, to provide advice to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005, executing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and modernizing the nation's electricity delivery infrastructure. The EAC is composed of individuals of diverse background selected for their technical expertise and experience, established records of distinguished professional service, and their knowledge of issues that pertain to electricity.

Tentative Agenda: The meeting of the EAC is expected to include panels or presentations on rates, tariffs, and market design for energy storage; mutual assistance agreements; and emergency response and resilience in recovery efforts. The meeting is also expected to include a discussion on regulatory reform and an update on FERC activities presented by Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur. Additionally, the meeting is expected to include an update on the programs and initiatives of the DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and a discussion of the plans and activities of the Smart Grid Subcommittee, Power Delivery Subcommittee, and Energy Storage Subcommittee.

The meeting agenda may change to accommodate EAC business. For EAC agenda updates, see the EAC website at: http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-advisory-committee-eac.

Public Participation: The EAC welcomes the attendance of the public at its meetings. Individuals who wish to offer public comments at the EAC meeting may do so on Wednesday, February 21, 2018, but must register at the registration table in advance. Approximately five minutes will be reserved for public comments. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak but is not expected to exceed three minutes. Anyone who is not able to attend the meeting, or for whom the allotted public comments time is insufficient to address pertinent issues with the EAC, is invited to send a written statement to Mr. Matthew Rosenbaum.

You may submit comments, identified by “Electricity Advisory Committee Open Meeting,” by any of the following methods:

• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Matthew Rosenbaum, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8G-017, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.

• Email: [email protected]. Include “Electricity Advisory Committee Open Meeting” in the subject line of the message.

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and identifier. All comments received will be posted without change to http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-advisory-committee-eac, including any personal information provided.

• Docket: For access to the docket, to read background documents or comments received, go to http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-advisory-committee-eac.

The following electronic file formats are acceptable: Microsoft Word (.doc), Corel Word Perfect (.wpd), Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Rich Text Format (.rtf), plain text (.txt), Microsoft Excel (.xls), and Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt). If you submit information that you believe to be exempt by law from public disclosure, you must submit one complete copy, as well as one copy from which the information claimed to be exempt by law from public disclosure has been deleted. You must also explain the reasons why you believe the deleted information is exempt from disclosure.

DOE is responsible for the final determination concerning disclosure or nondisclosure of the information and for treating it in accordance with the DOE's Freedom of Information regulations (10 CFR 1004.11).

Minutes: The minutes of the EAC meeting will be posted on the EAC web page at http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-advisory-committee-eac. They can also be obtained by contacting Mr. Matthew Rosenbaum at the address above.

Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: This ICR covers the information collection activities associated with the issuance of data-call-ins (DCIs) under section 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In general, before manufacturers can sell pesticides in the United States, EPA must evaluate the pesticides thoroughly to ensure that they meet federal safety standards to protect human health and the environment. EPA grants a “registration” or license that permits a pesticide's distribution, sale, and use only after the company meets the scientific and regulatory requirements. In evaluating a pesticide registration application, EPA assesses a wide variety of potential human health and environmental effects associated with the use of the product. Applicants, or potential registrants, must generate or provide the scientific data necessary to address concerns pertaining to the identity, composition, potential adverse effects, and environmental fate of each pesticide. The data allow EPA to evaluate whether a pesticide has the potential to cause harmful effects on certain non-target organisms and endangered species that include: Humans; wildlife; plants; and surface water or ground water.

Through a rigorous scientific and public process, EPA specifies the kinds of data and information necessary to make regulatory judgments about the risks and benefits of pesticide products under FIFRA sections 3, 4 and 5, as well as the data and information needed to determine the safety of pesticide chemical residues under FFDCA section 408. The regulations in 40 CFR part 158 describe the minimum data and information EPA typically requires to support an application for pesticide registration or amendment; support the reregistration of a pesticide product; support the maintenance of a pesticide registration by means of the data call-in process; or establish or maintain a tolerance or exemption from the requirements of a tolerance for a pesticide chemical residue. As described in 40 CFR 158.30, however, FIFRA provides EPA with flexibility to require, or not require, data and information for the purposes of making regulatory judgments for individual pesticide products, thereby allowing for the data required to be modified on an individual basis to fully characterize the use and properties, characteristics, or effects of specific pesticide products under review. The Agency encourages each applicant to consult with EPA to discuss the data requirements prior to and during the registration process. In addition, the Agency cautions applicants that the data routinely required by the regulations may not be sufficient to permit EPA to evaluate the potential of the product to cause unreasonable adverse effects on man or the environment. EPA may, therefore, require the submission of additional data or information beyond that specified in the regulations if such data or information are needed to evaluate a pesticide product as required by FIFRA and FFDCA.

EPA uses the DCIs issued to acquire the data that has been deemed necessary for the Agency's statutorily mandated review of a pesticide's registration, which require it to assess whether the continued registration of an existing pesticide causes an unreasonable adverse effect on human health or the environment and whether the Agency will pursue regulatory measures.

Respondents/affected entities: Pesticide registrants—North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 325320 (Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing).

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B).

Estimated number of respondents: 122 (total).

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Total estimated burden: 615,447 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $43,792,523 (per year). There are no capital investment or maintenance and operational costs associated with this collection.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 353,146 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the last ICR approved by OMB. The burden increase is a cumulative result of the program implementing new methodologies to calculate respondent burden, the inclusion of a new information collection group—consortium participants—to more accurately reflect the respondent burden, renaming and recalculating an existing information collection group from Enforcement and Unanticipated Incident activities to Maintenance DCIs, and the acceleration of the Registration Review Program. All of these activities have contributed to the significant increase in number of DCIs to be issued (221 versus 45) annually.

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

OMB Control No.: 3060-1147.

Title: Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements (Third Report and Order in PS Docket No. 07-114).

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, state, local or tribal government, and Federal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,294 respondents; 4,510 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour-8 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 301, 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 31,668 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No Impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: No confidentiality is required for this collection.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an extension of this information collection (no change in the reporting requirement or in the previous burden estimates). The Commission will submit this information collection to OMB after this 60 day comment period.

The Commission's Third Report and Order in PS Docket No. 07-114 adopted a rule providing that new CMRS network providers meeting the definition of covered CMRS providers in Section 20.18 and deploying new stand-alone networks must meet the handset-based location accuracy standard in delivering emergency calls for Enhanced 911 service. The rule requires that new stand-alone CMRS providers must satisfy the handset-based location accuracy standard at either a county-based or Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)-based geographic level. Additionally, in accordance with the pre-existing requirements for CMRS providers using handset-based location technologies, new stand-alone CMRS providers are permitted to exclude up to 15 percent of the counties or PSAP areas they serve due to heavy forestation that limits handset-based technology accuracy in those counties or areas but are required to file an initial list of the specific counties or portions of counties where they are utilizing their respective exclusions.

A. Updated Exclusion Reports. Under this information collection and pursuant to current rule section 20.18(h), new stand-alone CMRS providers and existing CMRS providers that have filed initial exclusion reports are required to file reports informing the Commission of any changes to their exclusion lists within thirty days of discovering such changes. The permitted exclusions properly but narrowly account for the known technical limitations of either the handset-based or network-based location accuracy technologies chosen by a CMRS provider, while ensuring that the public safety community and the public at large are sufficiently informed of these limitations.

B. Confidence and Uncertainty Data. Under this information collection and pursuant to current rule section 20.18(h), all CMRS providers and other entities responsible for transporting confidence and uncertainty data between the wireless carriers and PSAPs, including LECs, CLECs, owners of E911 networks, and emergency service providers (collectively, System Service Providers (SSPs)) must continue to provide confidence and uncertainty data of wireless 911 calls to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) on a per call basis upon a PSAP's request. New stand-alone wireless carriers also incur this obligation. The transport of the confidence and uncertainty data is needed to ensure the delivery of accurate location information with E911 service.

On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, without revision, of the following report:

Report title: Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with the Real Estate Lending Standards Regulation for State Member Banks.

Agency form number: Reg H-5.

OMB control number: 7100-0261.

Frequency: Policy statement, annually; policy statement (de novo), annually; recordkeeping for loans with LTV's that exceed supervisory limits and maintaining a system of review, quarterly.

Respondents: State member banks.

Estimated number of respondents: 829.

Estimated average hours per response: Policy statement, 5 hours; policy statement (de novo), 20 hours; recordkeeping for loans with LTV's that exceed supervisory limits and maintaining a system of review, 5 hours.

Estimated annual burden hours: Policy statement, 4,145 hours; policy statement (de novo), 20 hours; recordkeeping for loans with LTV's that exceed supervisory limits and maintaining a system of review, 16,580 hours.

General Description of Report: State member banks must adopt and maintain a written real estate lending policy that is reviewed and approved by the bank's board of directors at least annually. Also, these banks must identify in their loan records loans in excess of the Board's supervisory loan-to-value (LTV) limits.

Legal authorization and confidentiality: The Board has determined that section 304 of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (12 U.S.C. 1828(o)) authorizes the Federal Reserve to require the recordkeeping requirements associated with the Board's Regulation H (12 CFR 208.51). The obligation of state member banks to comply with the Reg H recordkeeping requirements is mandatory. Since the information is not collected by the Federal Reserve, no issue of confidentiality under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) normally arises. However, information gathered by the Federal Reserve during examinations of state member banks would be deemed exempt from FOIA disclosure by exemption 8 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, exemptions (b)(4) and (b)(6) of FOIA, (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (b)(6)) also may exempt from disclosure certain data (specifically, individual loans identified as in excess of supervisory LTV limits) collected in response to these requirements if gathered by the Federal Reserve, depending on the particular circumstances. These additional exemptions relate to confidential commercial and financial information and personal information, respectively. Applicability of these exemptions would be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Current actions: On September 27, 2017, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (82 FR 45025) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with the Real Estate Lending Standards Regulation for State Member Banks (Reg H-5). The comment period for this notice expired on November 27, 2017. The Board did not receive any comments.

Background

Otay Mesa is located approximately 17 miles southeast of downtown San Diego, just north of the U.S. border and the Baja California Peninsula of Mexico. The Otay Mesa LPOE is one of the ten busiest LPOE's in the country and is the busiest commercial port on the California/Mexico border. Ever-increasing traffic loads and new security initiatives require increased capacity and new inspection technology to be installed and implemented at existing facilities.

The EIS will consider two “action” alternatives and one “no action” alternative. The two “action” alternatives consist of renovation and expansion activities at the existing Otay Mesa LPOE. These activities could include the construction of additional primary inspection and exit booths; the construction of a new commercial annex building for enrollment and processing capabilities; and the relocation of the existing hazardous materials docks. Improvements could also include modifications to inspection stations and work areas, including the construction of a new Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regional training center. Enhancements could also include the construction and operation of secondary inspection areas, holding rooms, as well as the expansion of pedestrian and commercial lanes.

The “no action” alternative assumes that modernization and expansion of the existing LPOE would not occur and that a new facility would not be constructed adjacent to the existing LPOE. The LPOE would continue to operate under current conditions.