The purpose of this meeting is to provide a progress report on outcomes related to NACIE's earlier work on access to capital and technology commercialization; update the council on ongoing Administration priorities, including Startup America and the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness; and continue work focusing on regional innovation ecosystems, technology commercialization, and high-growth entrepreneurship. The agenda may change to accommodate NACIE business. The final agenda will be posted on the NACIE Web site at http://www.eda.gov/nacie .

Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Council's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Darryl Scott at the contact information indicated below. Copies of meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting at http://www.eda.gov/NACIE.

Foreign policy-based controls in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) are implemented pursuant to section 6 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, (50 U.S.C. app. sections 2401-2420 (2000)) (EAA). The current foreign policy-based export controls maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) are set forth in the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774), including in parts 742 (CCL Based Controls), 744 (End-User and End-Use Based Controls) and 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls). These controls apply to a range of countries, items, activities and persons, including:

• Entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States (§ 744.11);

• Certain general purpose microprocessors for “military end-uses” and “military end-users” (§ 744.17);

• Significant items (SI):

• Hot section technology for the development, production, or overhaul of commercial aircraft engines, components, and systems (§ 742.14);

• Encryption items (§ 742.15);

• Crime control and detection items (§ 742.7);

• Specially designed implements of torture (§ 742.11);

• Certain firearms and related items based on the Organization of American States Model Regulations for the Control of the International Movement of Firearms, their Parts and Components and Munitions included within the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (§ 742.17);

• Regional stability items (§ 742.6);

• Equipment and related technical data used in the design, development, production, or use of certain rocket systems and unmanned air vehicles (§§ 742.5 and 744.3);

• Chemical precursors and biological agents, associated equipment, technical data, and software related to the production of chemical and biological agents (§§ 742.2 and 744.4) and various chemicals included on the list of those chemicals controlled pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention (§ 742.18);

• Nuclear propulsion (§ 744.5);

• Aircraft and vessels (§ 744.7);

• Restrictions on exports and reexports to certain persons designated as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction (§ 744.8);

• Communication intercepting devices, software and technology (§ 742.13);

• Embargoed countries (part 746);

• Countries designated as supporters of acts of international terrorism (§§ 742.8, 742.9, 742.10, 742.19, 746.2, 746.4, 746.7, and 746.9);

• Certain entities in Russia (§ 744.10);

• Individual terrorists and terrorist organizations (§§ 744.12, 744.13 and 744.14);

• Certain persons designated by Executive Order 13315 (“Blocking Property of the Former Iraqi Regime, Its Senior Officials and Their Family Members”) (§ 744.18);

• Certain sanctioned entities (§ 744.20); and

• Certain cameras to be used by military end-users or incorporated into a military commodity (§ 744.9).

In addition, the EAR impose foreign policy controls on nuclear-related commodities, technology, end-uses and end-users (§§ 742.3 and 744.2), which are, in part, implemented under section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Act (42 U.S.C. 2139a).

Under the provisions of Section 6 of the EAA, export controls maintained for foreign policy purposes require annual extension. Section 6 of the EAA requires a report to Congress when foreign policy-based export controls are extended. The EAA expired on August 20, 2001. Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of Notice of August 12, 2011, 76 FR 50661 (August 16, 2011), continues the EAR and, to the extent permitted by law, the provisions of the EAA, in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)). The Department of Commerce, as appropriate, continues to comply with the provisions of section 6 of the EAA by reviewing its foreign policy-based export controls, requesting public comments on such controls, and preparing a report to be submitted to Congress. In January 2011, the Secretary of Commerce, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, extended for one year all foreign policy-based export controls then in effect. BIS now solicits public comment on the effects of extending the existing foreign policy-based export controls for another year. Among the criteria considered in determining whether to extend U.S. foreign policy based export controls are the following:

1. The likelihood that such controls will achieve their intended foreign policy purposes, in light of other factors, including the availability from other countries of the goods, software or technology proposed for such controls;

2. Whether the foreign policy objective of such controls can be achieved through negotiations or other alternative means;

3. The compatibility of the controls with the foreign policy objectives of the United States and with overall U.S. policy toward the country subject to the controls;

4. Whether the reaction of other countries to the extension of such controls is not likely to render the controls ineffective in achieving the intended foreign policy objective or be counterproductive to U.S. foreign policy interests;

5. The comparative benefits to U.S. foreign policy objectives versus the effect of the controls on the export performance of the United States, the competitive position of the United States in the international economy, the international reputation of the United States as a supplier of goods and technology; and

6. The ability of the United States to effectively enforce the controls.

BIS is particularly interested in receiving comments on the economic impact of proliferation controls. BIS is also interested in information relating to the following:

1. Information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on sales of U.S. products to third countries ( i.e., those countries not targeted by sanctions), including the views of foreign purchasers or prospective customers regarding U.S. foreign policy based export controls.

2. Information on controls maintained by U.S. trade partners. For example, to what extent do U.S. trade partners have similar controls on goods and technology on a worldwide basis or to specific destinations?

3. Information on licensing policies or practices by our foreign trade partners that are similar to U.S. foreign policy based export controls, including license review criteria, use of conditions, and requirements for pre- and post-shipment verifications (preferably supported by examples of approvals, denials and foreign regulations).

4. Suggestions for bringing foreign policy-based export controls more into line with multilateral practice.

5. Comments or suggestions to make multilateral controls more effective.

6. Information that illustrates the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on trade or acquisitions by intended targets of the controls.

7. Data or other information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on overall trade at the level of individual industrial sectors.

8. Suggestions for measuring the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on trade.

9. Information on the use of foreign policy-based export controls on targeted countries, entities, or individuals. BIS is also interested in comments relating generally to the extension or revision of existing foreign policy-based export controls.

Parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. All comments received before the close of the comment period will be considered by BIS in reviewing the controls and in developing the report to Congress. All comments received in response to this notice will be displayed on BIS's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web site at http://www.bis.doc.gov/foia. All comments will be included in a report to Congress to comply with the requirement of Section 6 of the EAA, which directs that BIS report to Congress the results of its consultations with industry on the effects of foreign policy controls.

The International Buyer Program was established to bring international buyers together with U.S. firms by promoting leading U.S. trade shows in industries with high export potential. The International Buyer Program emphasizes cooperation between the DOC and trade show organizers to benefit U.S. firms exhibiting at selected events and provides practical, hands-on assistance such as export counseling and market analysis to U.S. companies interested in exporting. The assistance provided to show organizers includes worldwide overseas promotion of selected shows to potential international buyers, end-users, representatives and distributors. The worldwide promotion is executed through the offices of the DOC U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (hereinafter referred to as the Commercial Service) in more than 76 countries representing the United States' major trading partners, and also in U.S. Embassies in countries where the Commercial Service does not maintain offices.

The Commercial Service is accepting applications for the International Buyer Program for trade events taking place between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. Selection of a trade show is valid for one event, i.e., a trade show organizer seeking selection for a recurring event must submit a new application for selection for each occurrence of the event. Even if the event occurs more than once in the 12-month period covered by this announcement, the trade show organizer must submit a separate application for each event.

The Commercial Service expects to select approximately 35 events from among applicants to the program for the January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 period. The Commercial Service will select those events that are determined to most clearly meet the Commercial Service's statutory mandate to promote U.S. exports, especially those of small- and medium-sized enterprises, and that best meet the selection criteria articulated below. Shows selected for the International Buyer Program will provide a venue for U.S. companies interested in expanding their sales into international markets. Successful show organizer applicants will be required to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the DOC. The MOA constitutes an agreement between the DOC and the show organizer specifying which responsibilities are to be undertaken by the DOC as part of the International Buyer Program and, in turn, which responsibilities are to be undertaken by the show organizer. Anyone requesting application information will be sent a sample copy of the MOA along with the application and a copy of this Federal Register Notice. Applicants are encouraged to review the MOA closely as IBP participants are required to comply with all terms and conditions in the MOA, including construction of an international business center at the trade show and producing an export interest directory. The responsibilities to be undertaken by the DOC will be carried out by the Commercial Service.

There is no fee required to submit an application. If accepted into the program, a participation fee of $8,000 for shows of five days or less is required within 45 days of written notification of acceptance into the program. For trade shows more than five days in duration, or requiring more than one International Business Center, a participation fee of $14,000 is required. For trade shows ten days or more in duration, and/or requiring more than two International Business Centers, the participation fee will be negotiated, but shall not be less than $19,500.

The DOC selects trade shows to be International Buyer Program partners that it determines to be leading international trade shows appropriate for participation by U.S. exporting firms and for promotion in overseas markets by U.S. Embassies and Consulates. Selection as an International Buyer Program partner does not constitute a guarantee by the U.S. Government of the show's success. International Buyer Program partnership status is not an endorsement of the show organizer except as to its international buyer activities. Non-selection should not be viewed as a finding that the event will not be successful in the promotion of U.S. exports.

Exclusions: Trade shows that are either first-time or horizontal (non-industry specific) events generally will not be considered.

Eligibility: All 2013 U.S. trade events are eligible to apply.

General Evaluation Criteria: The Commercial Service will evaluate shows to be International Buyer Program partners using the following criteria:

(a) Level of Intellectual Property Rights Protection: The trade show organizer includes in the terms and conditions of its exhibitor contracts provisions for the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR); has procedures in place at the trade show to address IPR infringement, which, at a minimum, provides information to help U.S. exhibitors procure legal representation during the trade show; and agrees to assist the DOC to reach and educate U.S. exhibitors on the Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!), IPR protection measures available during the show, and the means to protect IPR in overseas markets, as well as in the United States.

(b) Export Potential: The trade show promotes products and services from U.S. industries that have high export potential, as determined by DOC sources, e.g., Commercial Service best prospects lists and U.S. export statistics (certain industries are rated as priorities by our domestic and international commercial officers in their Country Commercial Guides, available through the Web site, http://www.export.gov ).

(c) Level of International Interest: The trade show meets the needs of a significant number of overseas markets and corresponds to marketing opportunities as identified by the posts in their Country Commercial Guides ( e.g., best prospect lists). Previous international attendance at the show may be used as an indicator.

(d) Scope of the Show: The event must offer a broad spectrum of U.S. made products and services for the subject industry. Trade shows with a majority of U.S. firms as exhibitors are given priority.

(e) U.S. Content of Show Exhibitors: Trade shows with exhibitors featuring a high percentage of products produced in the United States or products with a high degree of U.S. content will be preferred.

(f) Stature of the Show: The trade show is clearly recognized by the industry it covers as a leading event for the promotion of that industry's products and services both domestically and internationally, and as a showplace for the latest technology or services in that industry.

(g) Level of Exhibitor Interest: There is demonstrated interest on the part of U.S. exhibitors in receiving international business visitors during the trade show. A significant number of U.S. exhibitors should be new-to-export (NTE) or seeking to expand their sales into additional export markets.

(h) Level of Overseas Marketing: There has been a demonstrated effort to market prior shows overseas. In addition, the applicant should describe in detail the international marketing program to be conducted for the event, and explain how efforts should increase individual and group international attendance. (Planned cooperation with Visit USA Committees overseas is desirable. For more information on Visit USA Committees go to: http://www.visitusa.com )

(i) Logistics: The trade show site, facilities, transportation services, and availability of accommodations at the site of the exhibition must be capable of accommodating large numbers of attendees whose native language will not be English.

(j) Level of Cooperation: The applicant demonstrates a willingness to cooperate with the Commercial Service to fulfill the program's goals and adhere to the target dates set out in the MOA and in the event timetables, both of which are available from the program office (see the “ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ” section above). Past experience in the International Buyer Program will be taken into account in evaluating the applications received for the January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 period.

(k) Delegation Incentives: Show organizers should offer a range of incentives to be offered to delegations and/or delegation leaders recruited by the Commercial Service overseas posts. Examples of incentives to international visitors and to organized delegations include, but are not limited to: Waived or reduced admission fees; special organized events, such as receptions, meetings with association executives, briefings, and site tours; and complimentary accommodations for delegation leaders. Waived or reduced admission fees are required for international attendees who are members of Commercial Service recruited delegations under this program. Delegation leaders also must be provided complimentary admission to the event.

Application Requirements: Show organizers submitting applications for the 2013 International Buyer Program are requested to submit: (1) A narrative statement addressing each question in the application, Form ITA-4102P; (2) a signed statement that “The above information provided is correct and the applicant will abide by the terms set forth in this Call for Applications for the 2013 International Buyer Program (January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013)”; and (3) two copies of the application, on company letterhead, and one electronic copy submitted on a CD-RW (preferably in Microsoft Word® format), on or before the deadline noted above. There is no fee required to apply. The DOC expects to issue the results of this process in April 2012.

Legal Authority: The Commercial Service has the legal authority to enter into MOAs with show organizers (partners) under the provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (MECEA), as amended (22 U.S.C. sections 2455(f) and 2458(c)). MECEA allows the Commercial Service to accept contributions of funds and services from firms for the purposes of furthering its mission. The statutory program authority for the Commercial Service to conduct the International Buyer Program is 15 U.S.C. 4724.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements of the application to this program (Form ITA-4102P) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (OMB Control No. 0625-0151).

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Background

The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3— Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Review of the following antidumping duty orders:

Background: The Secretary of Commerce established the RE&EEAC pursuant to his discretionary authority and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) on July 14, 2010. The RE&EEAC provides the Secretary of Commerce with consensus advice from the private sector on the development and administration of programs and policies to enhance the international competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. The RE&EEAC held its first meeting on December 7, 2010 and subsequent meetings on March 1, 2011, May 31-June 1, 2011, and August 19, 2011.

The meeting is open to the public and the room is disabled-accessible. Public seating is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Brian O'Hanlon at the contact information above by 5 p.m. E.D.T. on Friday, September 9, in order to pre-register for clearance into the building. Please specify any request for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. A limited amount of time, from 3 p.m. until 3:30 p.m., will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting.

Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the RE&EEAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to brian.ohanlon@trade.gov or to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, Office of Energy and Environmental Technologies Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, Room 3407; 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. E.D.T. on Friday, September 9, 2011, to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

Copies of RE&EEAC meeting minutes will be available within 30 days of the meeting.

This request is for an extension of a current information collection.

NOAA has established a program to reduce excess fishing capacity by paying fishermen to (1) surrender their fishing permits or (2) surrender their permits, and either scrap their vessels or restrict vessel titles to prevent fishing. These fishing capacity reduction programs, or buybacks, can be funded by a Federal loan to the industry or by direct Federal or other funding. These buybacks are conducted pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109-479). The regulations implementing the buybacks are at 50 CFR part 600.

Depending upon the type of buyback involved, the program can entail the submission of buyback requests by industry, the submission of bids, referenda of fishery participants, and reporting of the collection of fees to repay a Federal loan. For buybacks involving State-managed fisheries, the State may need to develop the buyback plan and comply with other information requirements. The information collected by NMFS is required to request a buyback, submit supporting data for requested buybacks, to submit bids, and to conduct referenda of fishery participants.

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR parts 600.1013 through 600.1017 form the basis for this collection of information on fee payment and collection. NMFS requests information from participating buyback participants. This information, upon receipt, tracks the repayment of the Federal loans that are issued as part of the buybacks, and ensures accurate management and monitoring of the loans during the repayment term.

Paper reports or electronic reports are required from buyback participants. Methods of submittal include mailing of paper forms, submission of forms via the Internet, and/or facsimile transmission of paper forms.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0376.

Form Number: None.

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

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households; and State, Local, or Tribal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,200.

Estimated Time per Response: 6,634 hours for an implementation plan, 4 hours for a referenda vote, 4 hours for an invitation to bid, 10 minutes to complete fish ticket data, 2 hours for the monthly buyer fee collection report, 4 hours for the annual buyer fee collection report, potentially 270 hours for a state approval of plans and amendments to state fishery management plan, and 1 hour for advising of any holder or owner claims that conflict with accepted bidders' representations about reduction permit ownership or reduction vessel ownership.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 18,874.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $2,115.

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.

The original meeting notice published on August 26, 2011, (76 FR 53417). The meetings were to be held on September 14 and 15, however, the meeting for September 15th is cancelled.

The Oversight Committee will review a Draft Final Skate Specifications Package for the 2012-13 fishing years and develop final recommendations for the September 2011 Council meeting. Beginning at 11 a.m., the Oversight Committee will meet jointly with the Whiting Advisory Panel to finalize and recommend potential management alternatives for Multispecies FMP Amendment 19 for the small mesh fishery (red hake, silver hake, offshore hake). These alternatives will include Annual Catch Limit (ACL) measures (allocations, buffers for management uncertainty, landings limits), Accountability Measures (AM), and possibly other measures to regulate the fishery and prevent catches from exceeding the ACL. Committee recommendations to include alternatives in Draft Amendment 19 will be made at the September 26-29 Council meeting.

If necessary, the Whiting Advisory Panel may meet separately during the meeting. The Skate/Whiting Oversight Committee will also review a final draft skate specifications package and make recommendations at the Council meeting. The Oversight Committee may discuss other business regarding whiting and skate management.

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 listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's 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 Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

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.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30 day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

NMFS received an application on March 4, 2011, from UAGI for the taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to conducting a marine geophysical seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean. NMFS reviewed UAGI's application and identified a number of issues requiring further clarification. After addressing comments from NMFS, UAGI modified its application and submitted a revised application on May 10, 2011. The May 10, 2011, application was the one made available for public comment (see ADDRESSES ) and considered by NMFS for this IHA.

UAGI proposes to conduct a 2D seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean, Chukchi Sea, in both international waters and within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in water depths ranging from 30-3,800 m (98-12,467 ft). UAGI plans to conduct the seismic survey from September 5 through October 9, 2011, which includes vessel transit time from Dutch Harbor.

UAGI plans to use one source vessel, the R/V Marcus G. Langseth ( Langseth ) and a seismic airgun array to collect seismic reflection data across the transition from the Chukchi Shelf to the Chukchi Borderland to define the apparent change in structure between two large continental blocks. In addition to the operation of the seismic airgun array, UAGI intends to operate a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a sub-bottom profiler (SBP) continuously throughout the survey. A 75-kilohertz (kHz) acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) may also be used.

Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) generated during the operation of the seismic airgun array may have the potential to cause a short-term behavioral disturbance for marine mammals in the survey area. This is the principal means of marine mammal taking associated with these activities, and UAGI requested and NMFS authorized the take of 11 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment in this IHA. These species are: Bowhead whale; gray whale; humpback whale; minke whale; fin whale; beluga whale; killer whale; bearded seal; spotted seal; ringed seal; and ribbon seal. Take is not expected to result from the use of the MBES or SBP; nor is take expected to result from collision with the vessel because it is a single vessel moving at a relatively slow speed during seismic acquisition within the survey, for a relatively short period of time (approximately 35 days). It is likely that any marine mammal would be able to avoid the vessel.

UAGI's survey is proposed to occur in the area 72.5-77° N. and 160-175° W. in international waters and within the U.S. EEZ (see Figure 1 in UAGI's application). The project is scheduled to occur from September 5-October 9, 2011. Some minor deviation from these dates is possible, depending on logistics and weather. Therefore, the period of validity of the IHA is from September 5-October 23, 2011. The vessel will not be able to remain in the area once ice begins to form, as the Langseth is not an icebreaker. The Langseth would depart from Dutch Harbor on September 5, 2011, and sail northeast to arrive at approximately 72.5° N., 162° W., where the seismic survey will begin, more than 200 km (124 mi) from Barrow. The entire cruise would last for approximately 35 days, and it is estimated that the total seismic survey time will be approximately 25 days, depending on ice conditions. Seismic survey work is scheduled to terminate near the starting point at approximately 72.4° N., 164° W. on October 6; the vessel would then sail south to Dutch Harbor for arrival on October 9. There could be extra days of seismic shooting, if the collected data are of substandard quality.

The survey will include collection of seismic reflection data across the transition from the Chukchi Shelf to the Chukchi Borderland to define the apparent change in structure between two large continental blocks. This study will test existing tectonic models and develop new constraints on the development of the Amerasian Basin and will substantially advance our understanding of the Mesozoic history of this basin. In addition, these data will enable the formulation of new tectonic models for the history of this region, which will improve our understanding of the surrounding continents.

The survey will involve one source vessel, the Langseth, which is operated by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO), a part of Columbia University, under a cooperative agreement with NSF. The Langseth will deploy an array of 10 airguns (1,830 in 3 ) as an energy source at a tow depth of 6 m (19.7 ft). The receiving system will consist of a 2-km (1.2-mi) long hydrophone streamer. As the airgun array is towed along the survey lines, the hydrophone streamer will receive the returning acoustic signals and transfer the data to the on-board processing system. In addition, at least 72 sonobuoys will be deployed in order to record seismic refraction data. The Langseth will be avoiding the ice edge, and an ice expert will be available to provide daily guidance and to predict ice movements.

The program will consist of a total of approximately 5,502 km (3,419 mi) of survey lines, not including transits to and from the survey area when airguns will not be in use (see Figure 1 in UAGI's application). Water depths within the study area range from approximately 30-3,800 m (98-12,467). Just over half of the survey effort (55%) will occur in water 100-1,000 m (328-3,281 ft) deep, 32% will take place in water >1,000 m (3,281 ft) deep, and 13% will occur in water depths <100 m (328 ft). There will be additional seismic operations in the survey area associated with turns, airgun testing, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. In addition to the operations of the airgun array, a Kongsberg EM 122 MBES and a Knudsen 320B SBP will also be operated from the Langseth continuously throughout the cruise. A 75-kHz ADCP may also be used.

All planned geophysical data acquisition activities will be conducted by L-DEO with on-board assistance by the scientists who have proposed the study. The Principal Investigator (PI) is Dr. Bernard Coakley of UAGI. The vessel will be self-contained, and the crew will live aboard the vessel for the entire cruise.

Table 1 in this document and Table 1 in UAGI's application show the distances at which three rms sound levels are expected to be received from the 10-airgun array and a single airgun. For the 10-airgun array, distances were modeled at seven sites; the distances in Table 1 are the averages from the sites in each depth range.

NMFS expects that acoustic stimuli resulting from operation of the single airgun or the 10 airgun array has the potential to harass marine mammals, incidental to the conduct of the proposed seismic survey. NMFS expects these disturbances to be temporary and result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior and/or low-level physiological effects (Level B harassment) of small numbers of certain species of marine mammals. NMFS does not expect that the movement of the Langseth, during the conduct of the seismic survey, has the potential to harass marine mammals because of the relatively slow operation speed of the vessel (4-5 kts [7.4 to 9.3 km/hr]) during seismic data acquisition.

Additional details on the purpose of the survey program and details of the vessel, acoustic equipment to be deployed and predicted sound radii are contained in NMFS' Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011). The activities to be conducted have not changed between the proposed notice and this final issuance notice. The reader should refer to the proposed notice and documents referenced earlier in this notice for further details (see ADDRESSES ).

A Notice of Proposed IHA published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2011 (76 FR 41463) for public comment. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received two comment letters from the following: The Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) and the North Slope Borough (NSB). All of the public comment letters are available on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Following are the public comments and NMFS' responses.

Comment 1: The NSB recommends modifying the timing of the survey tracklines so that all of the proposed survey area closest to the Chukchi Sea coast is surveyed in mid-September and the farthest points or areas are sampled at the end of the survey period in October. This approach will help to mitigate possible impacts to the availability of marine mammals, most notably bowhead whales, to subsistence communities by moving the airgun array as far away from the communities as possible just before and during hunts.

Response: Both UAGI and L-DEO considered this request and reviewed the constraints of operating the Langseth in the survey region during the proposed time frame. The Langseth is not an ice strengthened vessel, and, therefore, it must avoid working in areas with ice. In addition, for safety reasons, the vessel must prevent towed seismic equipment from becoming entangled with ice. The safety of both the vessel and its crew is foremost when planning surveys, especially in the proposed challenging operational area. In the past few years, the freshly formed sea ice crowds in from the west, thus the Langseth will need to begin the survey during the low ice period in the far northwestern quadrant and work in a southeastern direction to avoid ice possibly being in the survey area. Further various ice-dependent mammals like walrus, polar bears and several species of seal will be avoided by avoiding encroaching ice flows.

The closest survey lines in the lower southeastern portion of the survey area are approximately 250 km (155 mi) from the Chukchi Sea coast. Subsistence whaling typically occurs nearshore. In the Chukchi Sea region, the fall hunt is generally conducted in an area that extends 16 km (10 mi) west of Barrow to 48 km (30 mi) north of Barrow. This information is confirmed by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) in a recent letter to NMFS on a separate action, which states that “[s]ubsistence hunters have a limited hunting range and prefer to take whales close to shore so as to avoid hauling a harvested whale a long distance over which the whale could spoil. During the fall, however, subsistence hunters in the Chukchi Sea will pursue bowhead whales as far as 50 miles (80 km) from the coast in small, fiberglass boats.” Even if whaling crews venture out 80 km (50 mi), the Langseth would still be a minimum of 170 km (105.6 mi) from the hunting grounds at its closest point. Additionally, a local Barrow resident with knowledge about the marine mammals and fish of the area is expected to be included as an observer aboard the Langseth. This person will be able to act as a liaison with hunters if they are encountered at sea. In its 2011 Conflict Avoidance Agreement, the AEWC noted that geophysical activity should not occur within 48 km (30 mi) of the Chukchi Sea coast during the fall hunting season and any vessel operating within 96.5 km (60 mi) of the Chukchi Sea coast should participate in the Communication Centers. Neither of these triggers will be met during the UAGI survey; however, UAGI and L-DEO have agreed to communicate with Chukchi Sea hunters via the radio onboard the vessel. Based on this considerable distance from the traditional whale hunting grounds and the fact that the vessel will not come into any of the Chukchi Sea villages during the hunting season for resupply or crew changes, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses, even if the southeastern portion of the project area is surveyed in late September/early October. NMFS must also weigh the practicability of applicant implementation when requiring mitigation measures. Because changing the survey design could potentially make it impossible to survey the area or compromise the vessel or its crew, NMFS has determined that it is not feasible to change the survey design.

Comment 2: The MMC recommends that NMFS require UAGI to re-estimate the proposed exclusion and buffer zones for the mitigation airgun using operational and site-specific environmental parameters and the modeled developed by Marine Acoustics, Inc. (MAI). If NMFS does not follow this recommendation, then the MMC recommends that NMFS provide a detailed justification for basing the exclusion and buffer zones for the proposed survey in the Chukchi Sea and Arctic Ocean on modeling that relies on measurements from the Gulf of Mexico and that is inconsistent with the modeling approach used for the 10-airgun array.

Response: NMFS is satisfied that the data supplied are sufficient for NMFS to conduct its analysis and make any determinations and therefore no further effort is needed by the applicant. While exposures of marine mammals to acoustic stimuli are difficult to estimate, NMFS is confident that the levels of take provided by L-DEO in their IHA application and EA, and authorized herein are estimated based upon the best available scientific information and estimation methodology.

Although L-DEO has modeled a variety of source configurations typically used on the Langseth, for this survey, the PI requested a small energy source and unique source configuration to conduct the proposed research (i.e., 10-airgun array with a discharge volume of 1,830 in 3 ). L-DEO did not have a model result for this source/configuration available for use or the capability within L-DEO at the time to prepare one. As a result, MAI was contracted by L-DEO to model the unique source and configuration for this survey. For that reason, a model capable of accounting for site-specific environmental parameters was used to estimate the various sound isopleths for the 10-gun array.

The proposed mitigation gun is considered a low-energy source, a single bolt 40 in 3 airgun. While the model for the mitigation gun does not account for site-specific environmental conditions in the Arctic, given the small source, it was viewed as unnecessary to run an additional model incorporating environmental context for this survey. Model results for the mitigation gun do not appear inconsistent with results produced by MAI for the larger array. Additionally, sound source verification (SSV) tests have been conducted for several small airgun sources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in recent years. Although tests have not been conducted on a single bolt 40 in 3 airgun, SSV tests were conducted in 2008 on a 4 x 10 in 3 airgun array (total discharge volume of 40 in 3 ) and in 2009 on two 2 x 10 in 3 airgun array (total discharge volume of 40 in 3 ). These tests were conducted in shallow to intermediate water depths (as defined by the ranges provided in the UAGI IHA application). The 2008 test results indicate that sounds attenuated to 160-dB (rms) 1,400 m (4,593 ft) from the source, to 180-dB (rms) 160 m (525 ft) from the source, and to 190-dB (rms) 50 m (164 ft) from the source. The 2009 test results indicate that sounds attenuated to 160-dB (rms) 546 m (1,791 ft) from the source, to 180-dB (rms) 83 m (272 ft) from the source, and to 190-dB (rms) 33 m (108 ft) from the source. The results of these two tests are fairly consistent with the modeling for the single bolt gun to be used in this survey (see Table 1 earlier in this document). L-DEO intends to investigate new acoustic modeling programs in the future which incorporate environmental context. NMFS has considered the models and model results and has concluded that the proposed exclusions zones for the single mitigation gun are appropriate for the survey.

The IHA issued to UAGI, under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA provides monitoring and mitigation requirements to protect marine mammals from injury, serious injury, or mortality. UAGI is required to comply with the IHA's requirements. These analyses are supported by extensive scientific research and data. NMFS is confident in the peer-reviewed results of the L-DEO seismic calibration studies which, although viewed as conservative, were used to determine the sound radii for the mitigation airgun for this cruise and which factor into exposure estimates. NMFS has determined that these reviews are the best scientific data available for review of the IHA application and to support the necessary analyses and determinations under the MMPA, Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and NEPA.

Comment 3: The NSB states that NMFS should require applicants to assess impacts of surveys to bowhead whales to the 120 dB level, especially in this case because the survey will overlap in time with migrating bowheads and the hunts in Barrow and Wainwright.

Response: As noted by the NSB in its letter, UAGI did consider the impacts to bowhead whales from sound levels lower than 160 dB in its application. Additionally, NMFS also noted reactions of bowhead whales to sounds below 160 dB in its Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011). The best information available to date for reactions by bowhead whales to noise, such as seismic, is based on the results from the 1998 aerial survey (as supplemented by data from earlier years) as reported in Miller et al. (1999). In 1998, bowhead whales below the water surface at a distance of 20 km (12.4 mi) from an airgun array received pulses of about 117-135 dB re 1 μPa rms, depending upon propagation. Corresponding levels at 30 km (18.6 mi) were about 107-126 dB re 1 μPa rms. Miller et al. (1999) surmise that deflection may have begun about 35 km (21.7 mi) to the east of the seismic operations, but did not provide sound pressure level (SPL) measurements to that distance and noted that sound propagation has not been studied as extensively eastward in the alongshore direction, as it has northward, in the offshore direction. Therefore, while this single year of data analysis indicates that bowhead whales may make minor deflections in swimming direction at a distance of 30-35 km (18.6-21.7 mi), there is no indication that the SPL where deflection first begins is at 120 dB; it could be at another SPL lower or higher than 120 dB. Miller et al. (1999) also note that the received levels at 20-30 km (12.4-18.6 mi) were considerably lower in 1998 than have previously been shown to elicit avoidance in bowheads exposed to seismic pulses. However, the seismic airgun array used in 1998 was larger than the ones used in 1996 and 1997. Therefore, while NMFS considers impacts to bowhead whales from sound levels below 160 dB, NMFS believes that it cannot scientifically support adopting any single SPL value below 160 dB and apply it across the board for all species and in all circumstances.

As stated in the past, NMFS does not believe that minor course corrections during a migration rise to a level of being a significant behavioral response. To show the contextual nature of this minor behavioral modification, recent monitoring studies of Canadian seismic operations indicate that when, not migrating, but involved in feeding, bowhead whales do not move away from a noise source at an SPL of 160 dB. Therefore, while bowheads may avoid an area of 20 km (12.4 mi) around a noise source, when that determination requires a post-survey computer analysis to find that bowheads have made a 1 or 2 degree course change, NMFS believes that does not rise to a level of a “take.” NMFS therefore continues to estimate “takings” under the MMPA from impulse noises, such as seismic, as being at a distance of 160 dB (re 1 μPa).

Although it is possible that marine mammals could react to any sound levels detectable above the ambient noise level within the animals' respective frequency response range, this does not mean that such animals would react in a biologically significant way. According to experts on marine mammal behavior, the degree of reaction which constitutes a “take,” i.e., a reaction deemed to be biologically significant that could potentially disrupt the migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, etc., of a marine mammal is complex and context specific, and it depends on several variables in addition to the received level of the sound by the animals. These additional variables include, but are not limited to, other source characteristics (such as frequency range, duty cycle, continuous vs. impulse vs. intermittent sounds, duration, moving vs. stationary sources, etc.); specific species, populations, and/or stocks; prior experience of the animals (naïve vs. previously exposed); habituation or sensitization of the sound by the animals; and behavior context (whether the animal perceives the sound as predatory or simply annoyance), etc. (Southall et al., 2007). Therefore, unless and until an improved approach is developed and peer-reviewed, NMFS will continue to use the 160-dB threshold for determining the level of take of marine mammals by Level B harassment for impulse noise (such as from airguns). While NMFS does not consider exposures to sounds below 160-dB (rms) as likely to result in take of marine mammals by Level B harassment, NMFS acknowledges that some behaviors that might result from exposures at these lower levels do have the potential to impact a subsistence hunt.

MAI did not model the 120-dB isopleths for the 10-airgun array for the 120-dB radius. Using back-of-the-envelope calculations, which do not take into consideration the site-specific environmental parameters as was done for calculating the 160-, 180-, and 190-dB radii, the 120-dB radius is anticipated to extend approximately 115 km (71.5 mi) in deep water (>1,000 m [3,281 ft]), 177 km (110 mi) in intermediate water (100-1,000 m [328-3,281 ft]), and 204 km (126.8 mi) in shallow water (<100 m [328 ft]). The planned survey tracklines lie between 250 and 800 km (155 and 497 mi) offshore of the Chukchi Sea coast. Therefore, when surveying in the project area closest to Barrow and Wainwright, the sound will attenuate to 120-dB approximately 50 km (31 mi) from the coast. Typical bowhead hunting grounds in Barrow are to the east of Point Barrow, therefore making this distance even greater. Although Wainwright has not landed a fall bowhead whale in many years, the village did land a whale on October 7, 2010. If Wainwright conducts its hunt around this same time in 2011, it will be just after the conclusion of the UAGI survey. UAGI intends to cease seismic operations (barring weather or operational delays) on October 5, 2011. The vessel will then spend approximately 4 days transiting to Dutch Harbor. The Langseth will remain approximately 80 km (50 mi) or more offshore while transiting through the Chukchi Sea, and no airguns will be operating at this time. Based on the information provided here and later in this document, it is not anticipated that the UAGI survey will have an unmitigable adverse impact on the bowhead whale hunts at Barrow or Wainwright.

Comment 4: The NSB recommends that NMFS request the applicant to revise the proposal (and take request, if needed) and evaluate the potential impacts from the MBES, SBP, and ADCP.

Response: The applicant provided an evaluation of the potential impacts to marine mammals from the use of these equipment sources in the IHA application and the associated Environmental Assessment (EA). Additionally, NMFS evaluated the potential use of these devices and the potential impact that the sources may have on marine mammals in the Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011).

NMFS has determined that it is not necessary to calculate take, beyond what has already been calculated, from the use of these higher-frequency sound sources. The acoustic footprints of these sources are anticipated to fall within that of the airgun array. The likelihood of a marine mammal swimming within the narrow beams of these sources is small. If the animal were to swim within the area under the vessel where it could potentially be exposed to these sounds, it would likely only be subjected to a single pulse because of the narrow beams. Therefore, no additional take has been calculated for these sources.

Comment 5: The Commission recommends that if NMFS is planning to allow the applicant to resume full power after 8 minutes (min) under certain circumstances, specify in the authorization in all conditions under which an 8 min period could be followed by a full-power resumption of the airguns.

Response: NMFS has specified in the IHA all conditions when UAGI may resume full power after 8 min. During periods of active seismic operations, there are occasions when the airguns need to be temporarily shut-down (for example due to equipment failure, maintenance, or shut-down) or a power-down is necessary (for example when a marine mammal is seen to either enter or about to enter the exclusion zone [EZ]). In these instances, should the airguns be inactive or powered-down for more than 8 min, then L-DEO would follow the ramp-up procedures identified in the “Mitigation” section found later in this document where airguns will be re-started beginning with the smallest airgun in the array and increase in steps not to exceed 6 dB per 5 min over a total duration of approximately 30 min. NMFS and NSF believe that the 8 min period in question is an appropriate minimum amount of time to pass after which a ramp-up process should be followed. In these instances, should it be possible for the airguns to be re-activated without exceeding the 8 min period (for example equipment is fixed or a marine mammal is visually observed to have left the EZ for the full source level), then the airguns would be reactivated to the full operating source level identified for the survey (in this case, 1,830 in 3 ) without need for initiating ramp-up procedures. In the event a marine mammal enters the EZ and a power-down is initiated, and the marine mammal is not visually observed to have left the EZ, then UAGI and L-DEO must wait 15 min (for species with shorter dive durations—small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min (for species with longer dive durations—mysticetes) after the last sighting before ramp-up procedures can be initiated, or as otherwise directed by requirements in an IHA. However, ramp-up will not occur as long as a marine mammal is detected within the EZ, which provides more time for animals to leave the EZ, and accounts for the position, swim speed, and heading of marine mammals within the EZ.

Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS condition the authorization to require UAGI to monitor, document, and report observations during all ramp-up procedures.

Response: The IHA requires that observers on the Langseth make observations for 30 min prior to ramp-up, during all ramp-ups, and during all daytime seismic operations and record the following information when a marine mammal is sighted:

(i) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction of the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), and behavioral pace; and

(ii) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up or power-down), Beaufort wind force and sea state, visibility, and sun glare.

Comment 7: The Commission recommends that NMFS work with NSF to analyze these monitoring data to help determine the effectiveness of ramp-up procedures as a mitigation measure for geophysical surveys after the data are compiled and quality control measures have been completed.

Response: One of the primary purposes of monitoring is to result in “increased knowledge of the species” and the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures; the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure and marine mammal reaction to ramp-up would be useful information in this regard. NMFS has asked NSF and L-DEO to gather all data that could potentially provide information regarding the effectiveness of ramp-ups as a mitigation measure. However, considering the low numbers of marine mammal sightings and low numbers of ramp-ups, it is unlikely that the information will result in any statistically robust conclusions for this particular seismic survey. Over the long term, these requirements may provide information regarding the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure, provided animals are detected during ramp-up.

Comment 8: The Commission recommends that NMFS, prior to granting the requested authorization, provide additional justification for its preliminary determination that the proposed monitoring program will be sufficient to detect, with a high level of confidence, all marine mammals within or entering the identified EZs and buffer zones, including:

(1) Identifying those species that it believes can be detected with a high degree of confidence using visual monitoring only,

(2) Describing detection probability as a function of distance from the vessel,

(3) Describing changes in detection probability under various sea state and weather conditions and light levels, and

(4) Explaining how close to the vessel marine mammals must be for Protected Species Observers (PSOs) to achieve high nighttime detection rates.

Response: NMFS determined that the planned monitoring program will be sufficient to detect (using visual monitoring and passive acoustic monitoring [PAM]), with reasonable certainty, marine mammals within or entering identified EZs. This monitoring, along with the required mitigation measures, will result in the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks, will result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals, and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses. Also, NMFS expects some animals to avoid areas around the airgun array ensonified at the level of the EZ.

NMFS acknowledges that the detection probability for certain species of marine mammals varies depending on animal's size and behavior, as well as sea state, weather conditions, and light levels. The detectability of marine mammals likely decreases in low light (i.e., darkness), higher Beaufort sea states and wind conditions, and poor weather (e.g., fog and/or rain). However, at present, NMFS views the combination of visual monitoring and PAM as the most effective monitoring and mitigation techniques available for detecting marine mammals within or entering the EZ. The final monitoring and mitigation measures are the most effective feasible measures, and NMFS is not aware of any additional measures which could meaningfully increase the likelihood of detecting marine mammals in and around the EZ. Further, public comment has not revealed any additional monitoring or mitigation measures that could be feasibly implemented to increase the effectiveness of detection.

NSF, UAGI, and L-DEO are receptive to incorporating proven technologies and techniques to enhance the current monitoring and mitigation program. Until proven technological advances are made, nighttime mitigation measures during operations include combinations of the use of visual PSOs for ramp-ups, PAM, night vision devices (NVDs), and continuous shooting of a mitigation airgun. L-DEO has conducted two tests regarding the effectiveness of NVDs and nighttime sightings. Results of those tests indicated that NVDs are effective to at least 150-200 m (492-656 ft) from the vessel, and observing with the naked eye at night (i.e., darkness) is effective to about 30 m (98 ft) from the vessel. Should the airgun array be powered-down, the operation of a single airgun would continue to serve as a sound source deterrent to marine mammals. In the event of a complete shut-down of the airgun array at night for mitigation or repairs, L-DEO suspends the data collection until one-half hour after nautical twilight-dawn (when PSOs are able to clear the EZ). L-DEO will not activate the airguns until the entire EZ is visible for at least 30 min.

In cooperation with NMFS, L-DEO will be conducting efficacy experiments of NVDs during a future Langseth cruise. In addition, in response to a recommendation from NMFS, L-DEO is evaluating the use of handheld forward-looking thermal imaging cameras to supplement nighttime monitoring and mitigation practices. During other low power seismic and seafloor mapping surveys, L-DEO successfully used these devices while conducting nighttime seismic operations.

Comment 9: The NSB states that if PAM is intended to be used to help monitor the EZs, they recommend that NMFS require a different acoustic monitoring tool because the applicant did not provide details about the efficacy of their proposed approach for PAM and previous efforts to use PAM in the Chukchi Sea have had limited success. NMFS could require the deployment of sonobuoys as a means to detect marine mammals within or about to enter the EZs. The NSB fully supports the continued testing and development of PAM as a monitoring tool.

Response: NMFS has determined that the PAM system proposed to be used during the UAGI survey is sufficient. The use of sonobuoys to detect marine mammals is unlikely to provide additional detection or monitoring benefits over the PAM system aboard the Langseth. Single sonobuoys cannot be used to localize animals within the EZ, and NMFS is unaware of an effective method for deploying and using multiple sonobuoys together while on the move or the software to integrate the data in a timely fashion, whereas the PAM system is capable of determining rough approximates of animal locations, thus making the detections more meaningful in the augmentation of mitigation. Second, vocalizing low-frequency baleen whales are unlikely to be detected through sonobuoys because these sounds are below the human auditory threshold, whereas the PAM system is set up to display sound spectrograms that would allow the detection of marine mammal vocalizations outside of the human auditory range. Additionally, the location of sonobuoys after they are deployed are unknown, but they are designed to operate in line of sight distance from the vessel which would only provide limited detection improvement to visual detections during the day, and little improvement in the detection range compared to the current PAM system. The use of sonobuoys to detect marine mammals in the Arctic has also been done in the past during a similar survey, but no detections were made, and it is unlikely that sonobuoys would provide any improvement to detections beyond the visual and passive acoustic monitoring plan described in the IHA application.

Comment 10: The Commission recommends that NMFS require the applicant to:

(1) Report on the number of marine mammals that were detected acoustically and for which a power-down or shut-down of the airguns was initiated;

(2) Specify if such animals also were detected visually; and

(3) Compare the results from the two monitoring methods (visual versus acoustic) to help identify their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Response: The IHA requires that acoustic PSOs on the Langseth do and record the following when a marine mammal is detected by the PAM:

(i) Notify the on-duty visual PSO(s) immediately of a vocalizing marine mammal so a power-down or shut-down can be initiated, if required;

(ii) Enter the information regarding the vocalization into a database. The data to be entered include an acoustic encounter identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional information was recorded, position, and water depth when first detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, strength of signal, etc.), and any other notable information.

L-DEO reports on the number of acoustic detections made by the PAM system within the post-cruise monitoring reports as required by the IHA. The report also includes a description of any acoustic detections that were concurrent with visual sightings, which allows for a comparison of acoustic and visual detection methods for each cruise.

The post-cruise monitoring reports also include the following information: the total operational effort in daylight (hrs), the total operational effort at night (hrs), the total number of hours of visual observations conducted, the total number of sightings, and the total number of hours of acoustic detections conducted.

LGL, a contractor for L-DEO, has processed sighting and density data, and their publications can be viewed online at: http://www.lgl.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=162&lang=en. Post-cruise monitoring reports are currently available on the NMFS' MMPA Incidental Take Program website and on the NSF Web site ( http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/index.jsp ) should there be interest in further analysis of this data by the public.

Comment 11: The NSB recommends that NMFS require that all seismic surveys, regardless of their location or timing in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, undergo the independent peer review process.

Response: NMFS' implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.108(d) state that an independent peer review of a monitoring plan is required if the activity may affect the availability of a species or stock of marine mammals for taking for subsistence purposes. The independent peer review of monitoring plans for incidental take authorization applications is not required for activities that occur outside of Arctic waters or in Arctic waters if it is determined that the activity will not affect the availability of a species or stock of marine mammals for taking for subsistence purposes. UAGI provided NMFS with a draft IHA application in early March, 2011, which included information on the timing and location of its proposed seismic lines. For reasons stated in the Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011) and later in this document, NMFS determined it was not necessary to have UAGI's monitoring plan peer reviewed. The survey will occur in an area that is between 250 and 800 km (155 and 497 mi) northwest of Barrow and Wainwright. Sound levels in the closest portion of the survey area will attenuate to 120 dB at approximately 50 km (31 mi) from the coast. The bowhead whales will be traveling from the east in a westward direction, and will reach Barrow prior to entering the sound field of the survey. The survey will occur after the conclusion of the spring and summer beluga hunts in the Chukchi Sea. If any beluga hunting continues into early September, it will be when the vessel is transiting to the site, approximately 80 km (50 mi) offshore. Seal hunting occurs closer to shore and typically does not occur beyond 40 km (25 mi) from the coast. Additionally, a Barrow resident will be aboard the Langseth in order to communicate with hunters.

Since NMFS preliminarily determined (based on the information contained in the draft IHA application) that UAGI's activity would not affect the availability of a species or stock of marine mammals for taking for subsistence purposes, NMFS determined that their activity did not trigger the requirement for independent peer review of the monitoring plan. The trigger for needing an independent peer review of the monitoring plan is slightly different than the “no unmitigable adverse impact” determination that NMFS must make prior to the issuance of an IHA. Anyone is able to make recommendations on a proposed monitoring plan during the 30-day public comment period that is afforded during the proposed IHA process. NMFS will continue to make determinations on which activities require an independent peer review of the monitoring plans on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the implementing regulations.

Comment 12: The NSB states that NMFS should require each IHA applicant to contribute funding or support to gather additional scientific information about the long-term impacts of anthropogenic sounds on bowhead and beluga whales. This could occur through satellite tracking, more extensive aerial or acoustic surveys, or physiological studies related to stress or impacts to hearing.

Response: NMFS' implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(14) indicate that NMFS encourages additional research and that applicants should coordinate with others conducting research on marine mammals in the same area. However, NMFS is unable to require that an applicant provide funding to those already conducting research on marine mammals.

The research scientist involved with this survey plans to use seismic equipment to investigate the tectonic structure in the Amerasian basin. While the study of long term impacts to marine mammals that deflect away from anthropogenic sound is outside of the proposed scope of this project, UAGI does support a variety of scientists and research at its institution, including marine mammal research. Data collected by PSOs on the Langseth during the survey will be made publicly available for further analysis by interested parties. This research project received funding from NSF. NSF has provided support and funding for workshops, conferences, and meetings related to the issue of anthropogenic sound in the marine environment and research proposals to enhance monitoring and mitigation measures for marine species, with a particular focus on marine mammals. NSF is receptive to receiving science proposals for funding consideration, including those to investigate anthropogenic sound in the marine environment and potential long-term effects. Proposals received would be reviewed and considered for funding through the standard NSF merit review process.

Comment 13: The NSB states that NMFS should request UAGI to revise their IHA application and take estimates to account for the migration of marine mammals through the proposed survey area.

Response: NMFS does not agree that the take estimates need to be revised for bowhead and beluga whales to account for migration. First, evidence has shown that the bowhead whale fall migratory route through the Chukchi Sea is more spread out than in the Beaufort Sea, where whales tend to have a more confined migratory corridor due to ice conditions. In a recent satellite tagging study, Quakenbush et al. (2010) concluded from GPS data that bowhead whales do not spend much time in the northern Chukchi Sea or the Arctic Ocean north of the Chukchi Sea, near UAGI's 2011 seismic survey. Quakenbush et al. (2010) note that most of the whales moved west through the Chukchi Sea between 71° and 74° N. UAGI's study area occurs between 72.5-77° N. Based on that data, only part of the survey area occurs in the migratory corridor. Kernel densities from the study showed that areas with the highest probability of bowhead use from September to December were near Point Barrow and the northeast Chukotka coast; the area along the east coast of Wrangel Island also had a moderate probability of use (Quakenbush et al., 2010). In addition, movements and behavior of tagged bowhead whales in this study indicated that the greatest potential for disturbance from industrial activities is near Point Barrow in September and October and in the lease area in September. These locations are a considerable distance from UAGI's survey area.

UAGI used data collected during recent aerial surveys in the Chukchi Sea to determine likely densities of cetaceans in the fall. These data are considered the best available. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the authorized levels of take are appropriate. Reasoning for this determination was provided in the Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011). Additionally, UAGI included an additional 25 percent of survey tracklines into the calculations to account for lines associated with turns, airgun testing, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. Because UAGI multiplied the expected species density times the anticipated area to be ensonified to that level during airgun operations in each depth stratum, excluding overlap, this 25 percent contingency is included in the take calculations. Based on the reasoning provided here, NMFS has determined that it is unnecessary to recalculate the take estimates for bowhead and beluga whales or any other marine mammals that may occur in the seismic survey project area.

Comment 14: The Commission recommends that NMFS consult with the funding agency (i.e., NSF) and individual applicants (e.g., UAGI, L-DEO and U.S. Geological Survey) to develop, validate, and implement a monitoring program that provides a scientifically sound, reasonably accurate assessment of the types of marine mammal taking and number of marine mammals taken.

Response: Studies have reported on the abundance and distribution of marine mammals inhabiting the Arctic Ocean in the Chukchi Sea, which overlaps with the seismic survey area, and UAGI has incorporated this data into their analyses used to predict marine mammal take in their application. NMFS believes that UAGI's current approach for estimating abundance in the survey area (prior to the survey) is the best available approach.

There will be significant amounts of transit time during the cruise, and PSOs will be on watch prior to and after the seismic portions of the survey, in addition to during the survey. The collection of this visual observational data by PSOs may contribute to baseline data on marine mammals (presence/absence) and provide some generalized support for estimated take numbers, but it is unlikely that the information gathered from this single cruise would result in any statistically robust conclusions for any particular species because of the small number of animals typically observed.

NMFS acknowledges the MMC's recommendations and is open to further coordination with the MMC, NSF (the vessel owner), and L-DEO (the ship operator on behalf of NSF), to develop, validate, and implement a monitoring program that will provide or contribute towards a more accurate assessment of the types of marine mammal taking and the number of marine mammals taken. However, the cruise's primary focus is marine geophysical research, and the survey may be operationally limited due to considerations such as location, time, fuel, services, and other resources.

The Chukchi Sea supports a diverse assemblage of marine mammals, including: bowhead, gray, beluga, killer, minke, humpback, and fin whales; harbor porpoise; ringed, ribbon, spotted, and bearded seals; narwhals; polar bears; and walruses. The bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are listed as endangered, and the polar bear is listed as threatened under the U.S. ESA. All of these species are also considered depleted under the MMPA. On December 10, 2010, NMFS published a notification of proposed threatened status for subspecies of the ringed seal (75 FR 77476) and a notification of proposed threatened and not warranted status for subspecies and distinct population segments of the bearded seal (75 FR 77496) in the Federal Register . Neither species is considered depleted under the MMPA.

The bowhead and beluga whales and the ringed and bearded seals are the marine mammal species most likely to be encountered during this survey, with the ringed seal being the most likely marine mammal species to occur throughout the survey area. Although humpback and minke whales are uncommon in the Arctic Ocean, sightings of both species have occurred in the Chukchi Sea in recent years (Brueggeman, 2009; Haley et al., 2010; Clarke et al., 2011).

There are scattered records of narwhal in Alaskan waters, where the species is considered extralimital (Reeves et al., 2002). Harbor porpoises occur mainly in shelf areas where they can dive to depths of at least 220 m (722 ft) and stay submerged for more than 5 min (Harwood and Wilson, 2001). This species prefers shallower waters, making it unlikely that harbor porpoises would be encountered during the proposed seismic survey. Because of the rarity of these two species in the survey area, they are not considered further in this document. The polar bear and walrus are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not considered further in this IHA notice.

Refer to Sections III and IV of UAGI's application for detailed information regarding the abundance and distribution, seasonal distribution, population status, and life history and behavior of these species and their occurrence in the project area. When reviewing the application, NMFS determined that the species descriptions provided by UAGI correctly characterized the abundance and distribution, seasonal distribution, population status, and life history and behavior of each species. Additional information can also be found in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (SAR). The 2010 Alaska Marine Mammal SAR is available on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2010.pdf.

The application also presents how UAGI calculated the estimated densities for the marine mammals in the survey area (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS reviewed these data and determined them to be the best available scientific information for the purposes of the IHA.

When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, Southall et al. (2007) designate “functional hearing groups” for marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):

• Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 22 kHz (however, a study by Au et al. (2006) of humpback whale songs indicate that the range may extend to at least 24 kHz);

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;

• High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and

• Pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with the greatest sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.

As mentioned previously in this document, 11 marine mammal species (seven cetacean and four pinniped species) are likely to occur in the survey area. Of the seven cetacean species likely to occur in UAGI's survey area, five are classified as low frequency cetaceans (i.e., bowhead, gray, humpback, minke, and fin whales) and two are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., beluga and killer whales) (Southall et al., 2007).

Acoustic stimuli generated by the operation of the airguns, which introduce sound into the marine environment, may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of marine mammals in the survey area. The effects of sounds from airgun operations might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). Takes by serious injury or mortality are not anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed activities and none are authorized in the IHA.

Permanent hearing impairment, in the unlikely event that it occurred, would constitute injury, but temporary threshold shift (TTS) is not an injury (Southall et al., 2007). Although the possibility cannot be entirely excluded, it is unlikely that the project would result in any cases of temporary or permanent hearing impairment or any significant non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Based on available data and studies, some behavioral disturbance is expected, but NMFS expects the disturbance to be localized and short-term.

In the “Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals” section of the Notice of Proposed IHA, NMFS included a qualitative discussion of the different ways that the seismic survey activities may potentially affect marine mammals. The discussion included potential effects from the airguns, as well as the other instrumentation that may be deployed during the survey (i.e., MBES, SBP, and ADCP). Marine mammals may experience masking and behavioral disturbance. The information contained in the “Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals” section from the proposed IHA has not changed. Please refer to the Notice of Proposed IHA for the full discussion (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011). Additional information can also be found in UAGI's application and the NSF EA (see ADDRESSES ). The inclusion of mitigation and monitoring measures described later in this document (see the “Mitigation” and “Monitoring and Reporting” sections) are anticipated to reduce impacts even further.

The seismic survey is not anticipated to have any permanent impact on habitats used by the marine mammals in the survey area, including the food sources they use (i.e., fish and invertebrates). Additionally, no physical damage to any habitat is anticipated as a result of conducting the seismic survey. While it is anticipated that the specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification, this impact to habitat is temporary and reversible and was considered as behavioral modification. The main impact associated with the activity will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals.

The Notice of Proposed IHA contained a full discussion of the potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and prey species in the project area. No changes have been made to that discussion. Please refer to the Notice of Proposed IHA for the full discussion of potential impacts to marine mammal habitat (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011). NMFS has determined that UAGI's marine seismic survey is not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or on the food sources that they utilize.

In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, 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 subsistence uses (where relevant).

UAGI and L-DEO have based the mitigation measures described herein, to be implemented for the proposed seismic survey, on the following:

(1) Protocols used during previous L-DEO seismic research cruises as approved by NMFS; and

(2) Recommended best practices in Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. (1998), and Weir and Dolman (2007).

To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the proposed activities, UAGI and/or its designees will implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:

(1) Exclusion zones;

(2) Power-down procedures;

(3) Shut-down procedures; and

(4) Ramp-up procedures.

Prior to submitting a final MMPA ITA request to NMFS, NSF works with the scientists that propose studies to determine when to conduct the research study. Dr. Coakley worked with L-DEO and NSF to identify potential time periods to carry out the survey, taking into consideration key factors such as environmental conditions (i.e., ice conditions, the seasonal presence of marine mammals and sea birds), weather conditions, and equipment. The project's timeframe avoids the eastward (spring) bowhead migration but overlaps with that of the westward fall migration and the subsistence bowhead hunt along the north shore of Alaska near Barrow. To avoid disturbance, the seismic survey has been scheduled to depart from Dutch Harbor in early September and remain at least 200 km (124 mi) from Barrow during transit to and from the survey area, which is approximately 250-800 km (155-497 mi) northwest of Barrow. Also, to reduce potential effects, the size of the energy source was reduced from the Langseth' s 36-airgun, 6600-in 3 array to a 10-airgun, 1830-in 3 array.

Received sound levels for the 10-airgun array have been predicted by Marine Acoustics Inc. in relation to distance and direction from the airguns, and received sound levels for a single 40-in 3 mitigation airgun have been predicted by L-DEO. Table 1 shows the distances at which three rms sound levels are expected to be received from the 10-airgun array and a single airgun at shallow, intermediate, and deep water depths. The 180- and 190-dB levels are shut-down criteria applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, as specified by NMFS (2000); these levels were used to establish the EZs. For the 10-airgun array, the 180-dB radius for each of the three water depth categories is as follows: 425 m (0.26 mi) in deep water; 1,400 m (0.87 mi) in intermediate water; and 1,870 m (1.16 mi) in shallow water. For the 10-airgun array, the 190-dB radius for each of the three water depth categories is as follows: 130 m (426.5 ft) in deep water; 130 m (426.5 ft) in intermediate water; and 190 m (623.4 ft) in shallow water. If the protected species visual observer (PSVO) detects marine mammal(s) within or about to enter the appropriate EZ, the airguns will be powered down (or shut down if necessary) immediately.

A power-down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such that the radius of the 180 dB (or 190 dB) zone is decreased to the extent that marine mammals are no longer in or about to enter the EZ. A power-down of the airgun array can also occur when the vessel is moving from one seismic line to another. During a power-down for mitigation, UAGI and L-DEO will operate one airgun. The continued operation of one airgun is intended to alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel in the area. In contrast, a shut-down occurs when the Langseth suspends all airgun activity.

If the PSVO detects a marine mammal outside the EZ, but it is likely to enter the EZ, the airguns will be powered-down before the animal is within the applicable EZ (dependent upon species). Likewise, if a marine mammal is already within the EZ when first detected, UAGI and L-DEO will power-down the airguns immediately. During a power-down of the airgun array, UAGI will also operate the 40 in 3 airgun. If a marine mammal is detected within or near the smaller EZ around that single airgun (Table 1), UAGI and L-DEO will shut-down the airgun (see next section).

Following a power-down, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the EZ. UAGI and L-DEO will consider the animal to have cleared the EZ if:

• A PSVO has visually observed the animal leave the EZ, or

• A PSVO has not sighted the animal within the EZ for 15 min for species with shorter dive durations (i.e., small odontocetes or pinnipeds), or 30 min for species with longer dive durations (i.e., mysticetes; no large odontocetes, such as sperm whales, or beaked whales occur in the survey area).

The airgun array will be ramped up gradually after the marine mammal has cleared the EZ (see Ramp-up Procedures ).

UAGI and L-DEO will shut down the operating airgun(s) if a marine mammal is seen within or approaching the EZ for the single airgun. A shut-down shall be implemented:

(1) If an animal enters the EZ of the single airgun after a power-down has been initiated; or

(2) If an animal is initially seen within the EZ of the single airgun when more than one airgun (typically the full airgun array) is operating.

UAGI and L-DEO shall not resume airgun activity until the marine mammal has cleared the EZ or until the PSVO is confident that the animal has left the vicinity of the vessel. Criteria for judging that the animal has cleared the EZ will be as described in the preceding section regarding a power-down.

UAGI and L-DEO shall follow a ramp-up procedure when the airgun array begins operating after a specified period without airgun operations or when a power-down has exceeded that period. For the present cruise, this period would be approximately 8 min. L-DEO has used similar periods (approximately 8 to 10 min) during previous L-DEO surveys.

Ramp-up will begin with the smallest airgun in the array (40 in 3 ). Airguns will be added in a sequence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5 min period over a total duration of approximately 15-20 min. During ramp-up, the PSVOs will monitor the EZ, and if marine mammals are sighted, UAGI and L-DEO will implement a power-down or shut-down as though the full airgun array were operational.

If the complete EZ has not been visible for at least 30 min prior to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime, ramp-up shall not commence unless at least one airgun (40 in 3 or similar) has been operating during the interruption of seismic survey operations. Given these provisions, it is likely that the airgun array will not be ramped-up from a complete shut-down at night or in thick fog, because the outer part of the safety zone for that array will not be visible during those conditions. If one airgun has operated during a power-down period, ramp-up to full power will be permissible at night or in poor visibility, on the assumption that marine mammals will be alerted to the approaching seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and could move away. UAGI and L-DEO shall not initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if a marine mammal is sighted within or near the applicable EZs during the day or night.

UAGI and L-DEO are required to alter the speed or course of the vessel during seismic operations if a marine mammal, based on its position and relative motion, appears likely to enter the relevant EZ. If speed or course alteration is not safe or practicable, or if after alteration the marine mammal still appears likely to enter the EZ, further mitigation measures, such as a power-down or shut-down (as described in the previous sections), shall be taken.

NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and

• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's measures and a range of other measures, NMFS has determined that the required mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. Measures to ensure availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses is discussed later in this document (see “Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses” section).

In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must, where applicable, 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 ITAs 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 action area.

UAGI will sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the project, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring and to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the IHA. UAGI's Monitoring Plan is described next. The monitoring work described here has been planned as a self-contained project independent of any other related monitoring projects that may be occurring simultaneously in the same regions. UAGI is prepared to discuss coordination of its monitoring program with any related work that might be done by other groups insofar as this is practical and desirable.

PSVOs will be based aboard the seismic source vessel and will watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun operations and during any ramp-ups at night. PSVOs will also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of airgun operations after an extended shut-down (as described in the “Mitigation” section earlier in this document). PSVOs will conduct observations during daytime periods when the seismic system is not operating for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and without airgun operations and between acquisition periods. Based on PSVO observations, the airguns will be powered-down or shut-down when marine mammals are observed within or about to enter a designated EZ.

During seismic operations in the Arctic Ocean, at least five PSOs will be based aboard the Langseth. L-DEO will appoint the PSOs with NMFS' concurrence. Observations will take place during ongoing daytime operations and nighttime ramp-ups of the airguns. During the majority of seismic operations, two PSVOs will be on duty from the observation tower to monitor marine mammals near the seismic vessel. Use of two simultaneous PSVOs will increase the effectiveness of detecting animals near the source vessel. However, during meal times and bathroom breaks, it is sometimes difficult to have two PSVOs on effort, but at least one PSVO will be on duty. PSVO(s) will be on duty in shifts of duration no longer than 4 hr.

Two PSVOs will also be on visual watch during all nighttime ramp-ups of the seismic airguns. A third PSO will monitor the passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) equipment 24 hours a day to detect vocalizing marine mammals present in the action area. In summary, a typical daytime cruise would have scheduled two PSVOs on duty from the observation tower, and a third PSO on PAM. Other crew will also be instructed to assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements (if practical). Before the start of the seismic survey, the crew will be given additional instruction on how to do so.

The Langseth is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations. When stationed on the observation platform, the eye level will be approximately 21.5 m (70.5 ft) above sea level, and the PSVO will have a good view around the entire vessel. During daytime, the PSVOs will scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25 x 150), and with the naked eye. During darkness, night vision devices (NVDs) will be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular-image intensifier or equivalent), when required. Laser range-finding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation. Those are useful in training observers to estimate distances visually but are generally not useful in measuring distances to animals directly; that is done primarily with the reticles in the binoculars.

When marine mammals are detected within or about to enter the designated EZ, the airguns will immediately be powered-down or shut-down if necessary. The PSO(s) will continue to maintain watch to determine when the animal(s) are outside the EZ by visual confirmation. Airgun operations will not resume until the animal is confirmed to have left the EZ, or if not observed after 15 min for species with shorter dive durations (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min for species with longer dive durations (mysticetes).

PAM will complement the visual monitoring program, when practicable. Visual monitoring typically is not effective during periods of poor visibility or at night, and even with good visibility, is unable to detect marine mammals when they are below the surface or beyond visual range.

Besides the three PSVOs, an additional Protected Species Acoustic Observer (PSAO) with primary responsibility for PAM will also be aboard the vessel. UAGI and L-DEO can use acoustic monitoring in addition to visual observations to improve detection, identification, and localization of marine mammals. The acoustic monitoring will serve to alert visual observers (if on duty) when vocalizing marine mammals are detected. It is only useful when marine mammals call, but it can be effective either by day or by night and does not depend on good visibility. It will be monitored in real time so that the PSVOs can be advised when animals are detected acoustically. When bearings (primary and mirror-image) to calling animal(s) are determined, the bearings will be relayed to the visual observer to help him/her sight the calling animal(s).

The PAM system consists of hardware (i.e., hydrophones) and software. The “wet end” of the system consists of a towed hydrophone array that is connected to the vessel by a tow cable. The array will be deployed from a winch located on the back deck. A deck cable will connect from the winch to the main computer laboratory where the acoustic station and signal conditioning and processing system will be located. The digitized signal and PAM system is monitored by PSAOs at a station in the main laboratory. The hydrophone array is typically towed at depths of less than 20 m (66 ft).

Ideally, the PSAO will monitor the towed hydrophones 24 hr per day at the seismic survey area during airgun operations and during most periods when the Langseth is underway while the airguns are not operating. However, PAM may not be possible if damage occurs to both the primary and back-up hydrophone arrays during operations. The primary PAM streamer on the Langseth is a digital hydrophone streamer. Should the digital streamer fail, back-up systems should include an analog spare streamer and a hull-mounted hydrophone. Every effort would be made to have a working PAM system during the cruise. In the unlikely event that all three of these systems were to fail, UAGI would continue science acquisition with the visual-based observer program. The PAM system is a supplementary enhancement to the visual monitoring program. If weather conditions were to prevent the use of PAM, then conditions would also likely prevent the use of the airgun array.

One PSAO will monitor the acoustic detection system at any one time, by listening to the signals from two channels via headphones and/or speakers and watching the real-time spectrographic display for frequency ranges produced by marine mammals. PSAOs monitoring the acoustical data will be on shift for 1-6 hours at a time. Besides the PSVO, an additional PSAO with primary responsibility for PAM will also be aboard the source vessel. All PSVOs are expected to rotate through the PAM position, although the most experienced with acoustics will be on PAM duty more frequently.

When a vocalization is detected while visual observations are in progress, the PSAO will contact the PSVO immediately, to alert him/her to the presence of marine mammals (if they have not already been seen), and to allow a power-down or shut-down to be initiated, if required. The information regarding the call will be entered into a database. Data entry will include an acoustic encounter identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional information was recorded, position and water depth when first detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, strength of signal, etc.), and any other notable information. The acoustic detection can also be recorded for further analysis.

PSVOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate numbers of animals potentially `taken' by harassment (as defined in the MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a power-down or shut-down of the airguns when a marine mammal is within or near the EZ. Observations will also be made during daytime periods when the Langseth is underway without seismic operations.

When a sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded:

1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace.

2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, and sun glare.

The data listed under (2) will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.

All observations and power-downs or shut-downs will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into an electronic database. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, and other programs for further processing and archiving.

Results from the vessel-based observations will provide:

1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power-down or shut-down).

2. Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS.

3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted.

4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity.

5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity.

UAGI will submit a report to NMFS and NSF within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities). The report will also include estimates of the number and nature of exposures that could result in “takes” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways.

In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), UAGI and L-DEO will immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the following information:

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

• Name and type of vessel involved;

• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;

• Description of the incident;

• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Water depth;

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

• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

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

• Fate of the animal(s); and

• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

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

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

In the event that UAGI discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), UAGI will report the incident to the Chief of the Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the discovery. UAGI will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident.

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].” Only take by Level B harassment is anticipated and authorized as a result of the marine seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean. Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) generated during the operation of the seismic airgun array may have the potential to cause marine mammals in the survey area to be exposed to sounds at or greater than 160 dB or cause temporary, short-term changes in behavior. NMFS also assumes that marine mammals exposed to levels exceeding 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) may experience Level B harassment. The use of the ADCP is not anticipated to result in the take of low-frequency cetaceans or pinnipeds, as the frequency for this device is outside of or at the extreme upper end of the hearing ranges of these species. There is no evidence that the planned activities could result in injury, serious injury, or mortality within the specified geographic area. The required mitigation and monitoring measures will minimize any potential risk for injury, serious injury, or mortality.

The Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011) described UAGI's methods to estimate take by incidental harassment and presented the applicant's estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that could be affected during the seismic program. The estimates are based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that could be disturbed appreciably by operations with the 10-airgun array to be used during approximately 5,500 km (3,417.5 mi) of survey lines in the Arctic Ocean. A summary of that information is provided here. However, the reader should refer to the Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011) for the full discussion.

The anticipated radii of influence of the MBES, SBP, and ADCP are less than those for the airgun array. UAGI assumes that, during simultaneous operations of the airgun array and the other sources (which will be the case the majority of the time), any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the MBES, SBP, and ADCP would already be affected by the airguns. However, whether or not the airguns are operating simultaneously with the other sources, marine mammals are expected to exhibit no more than short-term and inconsequential responses to the MBES, SBP, and ADCP given their characteristics (e.g., narrow, downward-directed beam) and other considerations described previously. Therefore, UAGI provides no additional allowance for animals that could be affected by sound sources other than airguns.

UAGI calculated densities using data from the Chukchi Sea for the fall in depth strata 35-50 m (115-164 ft), 51-200 m (167-656 ft), and greater than 200 m (656 ft), mean group sizes from the Beaufort Whale Aerial Survey Project (BWASP) database, and values for trackline detection probability bias and availability bias, f (0) and g (0), from Harwood et al. (1996) for belugas, Thomas et al. (2002) for bowhead whales, and Forney and Barlow (1998) for gray whales. Based on the lack of any beluga whale sightings and very low densities of bowheads (0.0003-0.0044/km 2 ) and gray whales (0.0026-0.0042/km 2 ) during non-seismic periods of industry vessel operations in the Chukchi Sea in September-October 2006-2008 (Haley et al. , 2010), and the lack of beluga, bowhead, or gray whale sightings during arctic cruises by the Healy in August-September 2005 or July-August 2006 (Haley 2006; Haley and Ireland 2006), the calculated densities are possibly overestimates. Accordingly, they were reduced by an order of magnitude. Densities were calculated for depths greater than 200 m (656 ft) and less than 200 m (656 ft); in the latter case, the densities were effort-weighted averages of the 35-50 m (115-164 ft) and 51-200 m (167-656 ft) densities.

There is evidence of the occasional occurrence of humpback, minke, fin, and killer whales in the northern Chukchi Sea, but because they occur so infrequently in the Chukchi Sea, little to no data are available for the calculation of densities. Minimal densities were therefore assigned to these species to allow for chance encounters.

Four species of pinnipeds under NMFS jurisdiction could be encountered in the seismic survey area: ringed seal, bearded seal, ribbon seal, and spotted seal. Bengtson et al. (2005) reported ringed and bearded seal densities in nearshore fast ice and pack ice and offshore pack ice based on aerial surveys in May-June 1999 and May 2000; ringed seal but not bearded seal densities were corrected for haulout behavior. UAGI used densities from the offshore stratum (12P). Bearded seal densities were used for water depths less than 200 m (656 ft) and were assumed to be zero in water depths greater than 200 m (656 ft) because they are predominantly benthic feeders. The fall densities of ringed seals in the open water of the offshore survey area have been estimated as 1/10 of the spring pack ice densities because ringed seals are strongly associated with sea ice and begin to reoccupy nearshore fast ice areas as it forms in the fall. The resulting densities (.081/km 2 in 1999 and .023/km 2 in 2000) are similar to ringed seal density estimates (0.016/km 2 to 0.069/km 2 ) from industry vessel operations during summer 2006-2008 (Haley et al., 2010).

Little information is available on spotted seal or ribbon seal densities in offshore areas of the Chukchi Sea. Spotted seal density in the summer was estimated by multiplying the ringed seal density by 0.02. This calculation was based on the ratio of the estimated Chukchi populations of the two species: 8% of the Alaskan population of spotted seals is present in the Chukchi Sea during the summer and fall (Rugh et al., 1997); the Alaskan population of spotted seals is 59,214 (Allen and Angliss, 2010); and the population of ringed seals in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea is greater than 208,000 (Bengtson et al., 2005). The ribbon seal density used is based on two ribbon seal sightings reported during industry vessel operations in the Chukchi Sea in 2006-2008 (Haley et al., 2010).

Table 2 in this document (and Table 3 in UAGI's application) provides the estimated densities of marine mammals expected to occur in the survey area. As noted previously, there is some uncertainty about the representativeness of the data and assumptions used in the calculations. It is not known how closely the densities that were used reflect the actual densities that will be encountered; however, the approach used here is believed to be the best available at this time.

The estimated numbers of individuals potentially exposed are presented below based on the 160-dB re 1 μParms criterion for all marine mammals.

UAGI's estimates of exposures to various sound levels assume that the survey will be fully completed; in fact, the ensonified areas calculated using the planned number of line-kilometers have been increased by 25% to accommodate turns, lines that may need to be repeated, equipment testing, etc. As is typical during offshore ship surveys, inclement weather and equipment malfunctions are likely to cause delays and may limit the number of useful line-kilometers of seismic operations that can be undertaken. The Langseth is not ice-strengthened and will completely avoid ice, so it is very likely that the survey will not be completed because ice likely will be present. Furthermore, any marine mammal sightings within or near the designated EZ will result in the shut-down of seismic operations as a mitigation measure. Thus, the following estimates of the numbers of marine mammals potentially exposed to 160-dB (rms) sounds are precautionary, and probably overestimate the actual numbers of marine mammals that might be involved. These estimates assume that there will be no ice, weather, equipment, or mitigation delays, which is highly unlikely.

UAGI estimated the number of different individuals that may be exposed to airgun sounds with received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms) on one or more occasions by considering the total marine area that would be within the 160 dB radius around the operating airgun array on at least one occasion and the expected density of marine mammals. The number of possible exposures (including repeated exposures of the same individuals) can be estimated by considering the total marine area that would be within the 160 dB radius around the operating airguns, including areas of overlap. In the survey, the seismic lines are widely spaced in the survey area, so few individual marine mammals would be exposed more than once during the survey. The area including overlap is only 1.3 times the area excluding overlap. Moreover, it is unlikely that a particular animal would stay in the area during the entire survey. The number of different individuals potentially exposed to received levels greater than or equal to 160 re 1 µPa (rms) was calculated by multiplying:

(1) The expected species density, times

(2) The anticipated area to be ensonified to that level during airgun operations in each depth stratum, excluding overlap.

Table 4 in UAGI's application shows the estimates of the number of different individual marine mammals that potentially could be exposed to sounds greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the proposed seismic survey if no animals moved away from the survey vessel. Table 3 in this document presents the abundance of the different species or stocks, authorized take, and the percentage of the regional population or stock. The take estimates presented in this section of the document do not take into consideration the mitigation and monitoring measures that are required by the IHA.

UAGI and NSF will coordinate the planned marine mammal monitoring program associated with the seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean with other parties that may have an interest in the area and/or be conducting marine mammal studies in the same region during the seismic survey. No other marine mammal studies are expected to occur in the study area at the proposed time. However, other industry-funded seismic surveys may be occurring in the northeast Chukchi and/or western Beaufort Sea closer to shore, and those projects are likely to involve marine mammal monitoring. UAGI and NSF have coordinated, and will continue to coordinate, with other applicable Federal, State, and Borough agencies, and will comply with their requirements.

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.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1) The number of anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of anticipated injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment; and (4) the context in which the takes occur.

For reasons stated previously in this document, no injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of UAGI's seismic survey, and none are authorized by NMFS. Additionally, for reasons presented earlier in this document, temporary hearing impairment (and especially permanent hearing impairment) is not anticipated to occur during the specified activity. Impacts to marine mammals are anticipated to be in the form of Level B behavioral harassment only, due to the brief duration and sporadic nature of the survey. Certain species may have a behavioral reaction (e.g., increased swim speed, avoidance of the area, etc.) to the sound emitted during the marine seismic survey. Table 3 in this document outlines the number of Level B harassment takes that are anticipated as a result of the activities. No mortality or injury is expected to occur, and due to the nature, degree, and context of behavioral harassment anticipated, the activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival. The survey would not occur in any areas designated as critical habitat for ESA-listed species. Additionally, the seismic survey will not adversely impact marine mammal habitat.

While some of the species could potentially occur in the survey area year-round, some species only occur at certain times of the year. In the fall, bowhead whales begin their westward migration through the Beaufort Sea in late August/early September. The whales usually reach Barrow around mid-September. It is likely that most bowhead whales will not enter the survey area until about the second half of the survey time period. Additionally, humpback and fin whales have only started to be sighted in the Chukchi Sea in the last 5-6 years. As the extent of Arctic sea ice begins to change, these species may be expanding their normal range further north. However, this is still considered the extreme northern edge of the range of these species, so it is unlikely that they will be present throughout the entire survey time period.

Of the 11 marine mammal species likely to occur in the survey area, three are listed as endangered under the ESA: bowhead, humpback, and fin whale. All of these species are also considered depleted under the MMPA. The affected bowhead whale stock has been increasing at a rate of 3.4% per year since 2001. On December 10, 2010, NMFS published a notification of proposed threatened status for subspecies of the ringed seal (75 FR 77476) and a notification of proposed threatened and not warranted status for subspecies and distinct population segments of the bearded seal (75 FR 77496) in the Federal Register . Neither species is considered depleted under the MMPA. The listing for these species is not anticipated to be completed prior to the end of this seismic survey. Certain stocks of beluga whale and spotted seal are listed or proposed for listing under the ESA. However, those stocks do not occur in the project area.

As was noted in the Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011), many cetacean species, especially mysticetes, may display avoidance reactions and not enter into areas close to the active airgun array. However, alternate areas are available to these species. The location of the survey is not a known feeding ground for these species. It is not used for breeding or nursing. Although ice seals breed and nurse in the Chukchi Sea, the survey occurs outside of the time for ice seal breeding or nursing in the Chukchi Sea.

The population estimates for the species that may potentially be taken as a result of UAGI's seismic survey were presented earlier in this document. For reasons described earlier in this document, the maximum calculated number of individual marine mammals for each species that could potentially be taken by harassment is small relative to the overall population sizes (3% for ringed seals, 1.8% for beluga whales, and less than 1% of each of the other 9 marine mammal populations or stocks).

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 required mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that the seismic survey will result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals and that the total taking from UAGI's activities will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

Subsistence remains the basis for Alaska Native culture and community. Marine mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan waters by coastal Alaska Natives. In rural Alaska, subsistence activities are often central to many aspects of human existence, including patterns of family life, artistic expression, and community religious and celebratory activities. Additionally, the animals taken for subsistence provide a significant portion of the food that will last the community throughout the year. The main species that are hunted include bowhead and beluga whales, ringed, spotted, and bearded seals, walruses, and polar bears. (As mentioned previously in this document, both the walrus and the polar bear are under the USFWS' jurisdiction.) The importance of each of these species varies among the communities and is largely based on availability.

Barrow and Wainwright, which is in the Chukchi Sea, are the two villages that are closest to the survey area, which will be initiated more than 200 km (124 mi) offshore. Marine mammals are also hunted in the Beaufort Sea villages of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut (mostly from Cross Island). Other villages in the Chukchi Sea that hunt for marine mammals include Point Lay, Point Hope, Kivalina, and Kotzebue. The villages of Kivalina and Kotzebue are many hundreds of miles south of the project area.

Bowhead whale hunting is the key activity in the subsistence economies of Barrow and two smaller communities to the east, Nuiqsut and Kaktovik. Bowhead whales are also hunted by communities along the Chukchi Sea. The community of Barrow hunts bowhead whales in both the spring and fall during the whales' seasonal migrations along the coast. The communities of Nuiqsut and Kaktovik participate only in the fall bowhead harvest. The spring hunt at Barrow occurs after leads open because of the deterioration of pack ice; the spring hunt typically occurs from early April until the first week of June. The fall migration of bowhead whales that summer in the eastern Beaufort Sea typically begins in late August or September. The location of the fall subsistence hunt depends on ice conditions and (in some years) industrial activities that influence the bowheads' movements as they move west (Brower, 1996). In the fall, subsistence hunters use aluminum or fiberglass boats with outboards. Hunters prefer to take bowheads close to shore to avoid a long tow during which the meat can spoil, but Braund and Moorehead (1995) report that crews may (rarely) pursue whales as far as 80 km (50 mi) offshore. The autumn hunt at Barrow usually begins in mid-September, and mainly occurs in the waters east and northeast of Point Barrow. The whales have usually left the Beaufort Sea by late October (Treacy, 2002a,b). Along the Chukchi Sea coast, bowhead whales have recently primarily been hunted during the spring, between March and June. However, with changing ice patterns, there is a possibility that Chukchi Sea villages could begin participating in fall bowhead whale hunts. Table 4 in this document (Table 5 in UAGI's application) presents harvest data for the years 1993-2008 for bowhead whale hunts in five North Slope communities.

The survey will not have any impacts on the spring bowhead whale hunt by communities along the Chukchi Sea and Barrow, as those hunts are completed many months prior to the beginning of this survey. The villages of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut are several hundred miles to the east of the survey location. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated on the fall hunts at Kaktovik or Nuiqsut (Cross Island). The closest tracklines to Barrow are more than 200 km (124 mi) and in most cases between 250 and 800 km (155-497 mi) to the northwest of Barrow. The whales will reach Barrow before they enter into the survey area and even before entering into the area where sound attenuates to 120 dB for the 10-airgun array.

Beluga whales are available to subsistence hunters at Barrow in the spring when pack-ice conditions deteriorate and leads open up. Belugas may remain in the area through June and sometimes into July and August in ice-free waters. Hunters usually wait until after the spring bowhead whale hunt is finished before turning their attention to hunting belugas. Few, if any, belugas are taken by Kaktovik and Nuiqsut hunters and only during the fall whale harvest. Along the Chukchi Sea, belugas are hunted during the spring and in the summer (between July and August) by residents of Wainwright and Point Hope. Near Point Lay, belugas are taken in June and July. During 2002-2006, Alaska Native subsistence hunters took a mean annual number of 25.4 beluga whales from the Beaufort Sea stock and 59 from the eastern Chukchi Sea stock. The average annual harvest of beluga whales taken by Barrow for 1962-1982 was five (MMS, 1996). The Alaska Beluga Whale Committee recorded that 23 beluga whales had been harvested by Barrow hunters from 1987 to 2002, ranging from 0 in 1987, 1988, and 1995 to the high of 8 in 1997 (Fuller and George, 1999; Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, 2002 cited in USDI/BLM, 2005).

UAGI's seismic survey is not anticipated to impact beluga hunts conducted by villages of the North Slope. The timing of the survey is after the spring and summer beluga harvests in the Chukchi Sea. Although hunting of beluga from Point Hope may extend into September, off Point Hope, the vessel will remain approximately 80 km (50 mi) from the coast, in transit northward to the study area.

Ringed seals are hunted by villagers along the Beaufort Sea coast mainly from October through June. Hunting for these smaller mammals is concentrated during winter because bowhead whales, bearded seals, and caribou are available through other seasons. Winter leads in the area off Point Barrow and along the barrier islands of Elson Lagoon to the east are used for hunting ringed seals. The average annual ringed seal harvest by the community of Barrow from the 1960s through much of the 1980s has been estimated as 394. Along the Chukchi Sea coast, ringed seals are mainly taken between May and September near Wainwright and throughout the year by Point Lay and Point Hope hunters. As the seismic survey will occur far offshore, the survey will not affect ringed seals in the nearshore areas where they are hunted. It is unlikely that accessibility to ringed seals during the subsistence hunt could be impaired during the Langseth' s transit to and from the study area when the airguns are not operating. Although some hunting in the Chukchi Sea does occur as far as 32 km (20 mi) from shore, the area affected during transit would be in close proximity to the ship, which will be transiting approximately 80 km (50 mi) offshore.

The spotted seal subsistence hunt on the Beaufort Sea coast peaks in July and August, at least in 1987-1990, but involves few animals. Spotted seals typically migrate south by October to overwinter in the Bering Sea. Admiralty Bay, less than 60 km (37 mi) to the east of Barrow (and more than 260 km [162 mi] from the survey area), is a location where spotted seals are harvested. Spotted seals are also occasionally hunted in the area off Point Barrow and along the barrier islands of Elson Lagoon to the east (USDI/BLM, 2005). The average annual spotted seal harvest by the community of Barrow from 1987-1990 was one (Braund et al., 1993). Along the Chukchi Sea coast, seals are mainly taken between May and September near Wainwright and throughout the year by Point Lay and Point Hope hunters.

The seismic survey will take place at least 200 km offshore from the preferred nearshore harvest area of these seals. It is unlikely that accessibility to spotted seals during the subsistence hunt could be impaired during the Langseth' s transit to and from the study area when the airguns are not operating. Although some hunting in the Chukchi Sea does occur as far as 40 km (25 mi) from shore, the area affected during transit would be in close proximity to the ship.

Bearded seals, although not favored for their meat, are important to subsistence activities in Barrow because of their skins. Six to nine bearded seal hides are used by whalers to cover each of the skin-covered boats traditionally used for spring whaling. Because of their valuable hides and large size, bearded seals are specifically sought. Bearded seals are harvested during the summer months in the Beaufort Sea (USDI/BLM, 2005). The summer hunt typically occurs near Thetis Island in July through August (prior to initiation of UAGI's survey). The animals inhabit the environment around the ice floes in the drifting ice pack, so hunting usually occurs from boats in the drift ice. Braund et al. (1993) estimated that 174 bearded seals were harvested annually at Barrow from 1987 to 1990. The majority of bearded seal harvest sites from 1987 to 1990 was within approximately 24 km (15 mi) of Point Barrow (Braund et al., 1993), well inshore of the survey. Along the Chukchi Sea coast, bearded seals are mainly taken between May and September near Wainwright, during the spring and summer by Point Hope hunters, and throughout the year by Point Lay hunters. These hunts occur closer into shore than the survey area or the proposed transit route.

NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as:

Noise emitted during the seismic survey from the acoustic sources has the potential to impact marine mammals hunted by Native Alaskans. In the case of cetaceans, the most common reaction to anthropogenic sounds is avoidance of the ensonified area. In the case of bowhead whales, this often means that the animals divert from their normal migratory path by several kilometers. However, because the survey occurs so far from any of the traditional hunting grounds and to the west of the fall bowhead hunting areas (meaning the whales would reach the hunting grounds before entering the survey area), it is not anticipated that there will be impacts to subsistence uses.

Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require MMPA authorization applicants for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a POC or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes. UAGI has worked with the people of the NSB to identify and avoid areas of potential conflict. The project's principal investigator (PI) contacted Dr. Glenn Sheehan of the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium and NSB biologist, Dr. Robert Suydam, on January 7, 2010, to inform them of the proposed study and the elements intended to minimize potential subsistence conflict. The PI presented the proposed UAGI survey at a meeting of the AEWC in Barrow on February 11, 2010. He explained the survey plans to the local residents, including NSB Department of Wildlife Management biologists, consulted with stakeholders about their concerns, and discussed the aspects of the survey designed to mitigate impacts. No major concerns were expressed. The PI also attended the 2011 AEWC meeting on February 17-18; representatives from all NSB communities attended. The only concern expressed was that AEWC would like a good communication link with the Langseth during the survey. As requested by AEWC, communication lines between the NSB and the Langseth during the survey will be kept open in order to minimize potential conflicts. The study was also presented to government agencies, affected stakeholders, and the general public at the annual Arctic Open-water Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, on March 7-8, 2011.

As part of its MMPA IHA application, UAGI submitted a POC to NMFS. As noted in the POC, a Barrow resident knowledgeable about the mammals and fish of the area is expected to be included as a PSO aboard the Langseth. Although the primary duty of this individual will be as a member of the PSO team responsible for implementing the monitoring and mitigation requirements, this person will also be able to act as a liaison with hunters if they are encountered at sea. However, the activity has been timed so as to avoid overlap with the main harvests of marine mammals (especially bowhead whales). Meetings with whaling captains, other community representatives, the AEWC, NSB, and any other parties to the POC have been and will continue to be held, as necessary, to negotiate the terms of the POC and to coordinate the planned seismic survey operations with subsistence activity.

NMFS has determined that UAGI's marine seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. This determination is supported by the fact that UAGI and NSF have worked closely with the AEWC and NSB to ensure that the activities are not co-located with annual subsistence activities. Additionally, the seismic survey will occur more than 200 km (124 mi) offshore of the North Slope and to the west of the communities that conduct fall bowhead whale subsistence hunts. This means that the whales will reach the communities prior to entering into the survey area. The Chukchi Sea beluga hunts are typically completed prior to the time the Langseth would be transiting through the Chukchi Sea to the survey site. Should late summer or early fall hunts of certain species be occurring at the time of transit of the vessel, the hunts occur closer into shore than the proposed transit route of the Langseth.

Based on the measures described in UAGI's POC, the required mitigation and monitoring measures (described earlier in this document), and the project design itself, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from UAGI's marine seismic survey.

Three of the marine mammal species that could occur in the seismic survey area are listed under the ESA: Bowhead whale; humpback whale; and fin whale. Under section 7 of the ESA, NSF initiated formal consultation with the NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division, on this proposed seismic survey. NMFS' Office of Protected Resources, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, also initiated formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA with NMFS' Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division, to obtain a Biological Opinion evaluating the effects of issuing the IHA on ESA-listed marine mammals and, if appropriate, authorizing incidental take. In August 2011, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion and concluded that the action and issuance of the IHA are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of fin, bowhead, and humpback whales. NSF, UAGI, and L-DEO must comply with the Relevant Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Statement (ITS) corresponding to NMFS' Biological Opinion issued to NSF and NMFS' Office of Protected Resources. L-DEO must also comply with the mitigation and monitoring requirements included in the IHA in order to be exempt under the ITS in the Biological Opinion from the prohibition on take of listed endangered marine mammal species otherwise prohibited by section 9 of the ESA. Although the ringed seal and bearded seal have been proposed for listing under the ESA, this activity is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species, and neither of the listings will be finalized prior to conclusion of the proposed seismic survey. Therefore, consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA is not needed for these species.

With its complete application, UAGI and NSF provided NMFS an EA analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed specified activities on marine mammals including those listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The EA, prepared by LGL on behalf of NSF is entitled “Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the Arctic Ocean, September-October 2011.” NMFS conducted an independent review and evaluation of the document for sufficiency and compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 5.09(d) and determined that issuance of the IHA is not likely to result in significant impacts on the human environment. Consequently, NMFS has adopted NSF's EA and prepared a FONSI for the issuance of the IHA. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required and will not be prepared for the action.

As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to UAGI for the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to conducting a marine seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean, September-October 2011, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

1. Proposed Action. USACE is preparing an EIS/EIR to analyze the environmental impacts associated with a range of alternatives for providing dam safety and flood damage reduction associated with Phase 4 of the action for the Folsom Dam Modification Project, Approach Channel. This project addresses design alternatives for an Approach Channel that is tiered from the 2007 Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction—Joint Federal Project EIS/EIR NEPA analyses to complete construction of a control structure and spillway at Folsom Dam on the American River system.

2. Alternatives. The EIS/EIR will address construction alternatives that are intended to improve dam safety and provide flood risk management within the project area. Alternatives analyzed during the investigation may include, but are not limited to, a combination of one or more of the following design measures to complete the new control structure and spillway: installation of a temporary cofferdam or cutoff walls, construction of a spur dike, blasting to remove bedrock material, dredging, terrestrial deposition of dredge material, and temporary modification of existing terrestrial sites for haul routes and staging areas.

3. Scoping Process.

a. A public scoping meeting will be held to present an overview of the Folsom Dam Modification Project, Approach Channel and the EIS/EIR process, and to afford all interested parties with an opportunity to provide comments regarding the scope of analysis and potential alternatives. The public scoping meeting will be held in at the Folsom Community Center at 52 Natoma Street in Folsom, CA on October 20, 2011. Presentation will begin at 6 p.m.

b. Potentially significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS/EIR include project specific and cumulative effects on air quality, water quality, recreation, fisheries, and transportation.

c. USACE is consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to comply with the Endangered Species Act. USACE is also coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to comply with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

d. A 45-day public review period will be provided for all interested parties, individuals, and agencies to review and comment on the draft EIS/EIR. All interested parties are encouraged to respond to this notice and provide a current address if they wish to be notified of the draft EIS/EIR circulation.

4. Availability. The draft EIS/EIR is currently scheduled to be available for public review and comment in Spring 2012.

Interested parties are invited to submit written comments on the permit application on or before October 26, 2011. Scoping comments should be submitted within the next 60 days, but may be submitted at any time prior to publication of the Draft EIS. To submit comments on this notice or for questions about the proposed action and the Draft EIS, please contact Lisa Gibson, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-200, Sacramento, CA 95814-4708. Parties interested in being added to the Corps' electronic mail notification list for the proposed project can e-mail a request to spk-regulatory-info@usace.army.mil and indicate which list you would like your e-mail address to be added. Please refer to Identification Number SPK-2004-00116 in any correspondence.

The proposed Cordova Hills Project site is located in unincorporated eastern Sacramento County. The site is bordered on the west by Grant Line Road, and on the north by Glory Lane. The proposed project site is north of Kiefer Road and west of the Carson Creek drainage, in portions of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, Township 8 North, Range 7 East, and Section 18, Township 8 North, Range 8 East, Mount Diablo Meridian.

A wetland delineation of the project site, which has been approved by the Corps, indicates that a total of approximately 89 acres of waters of the United States are present within the proposed project area, including: 47.5 acres of vernal pools; 22.9 acres of seasonal wetlands; 0.01 acres of seeps; 16.9 acres of intermittent drainage; 0.17 acres of Carson Creek, and; 1.5 acres of man-made stock ponds.

The EIS will include alternatives to the Proposed Action that will meet NEPA requirements for a reasonable range of alternatives, and will also meet the requirements of CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The alternatives to be evaluated within the EIS have not yet been developed, but will, at a minimum, include the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Project Alternative, additional on-site alternatives, and off-site alternatives.

Sacramento County, as the lead agency responsible for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, is currently preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The DEIR is expected to be released in the fall of 2011.

The Corps' public involvement program includes several opportunities to provide verbal and written comments on the proposed Cordova Hills Project through the EIS process. Affected federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, and other interested private organizations and parties are invited to participate. Potentially significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS include loss of waters of the United States (including wetlands), and impacts related to cultural resources, biological resources, air quality, hydrology and water quality, noise, traffic, aesthetics, utilities and service systems, and socioeconomic effects.

The Corps will initiate formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for impacts to listed species that may result from the proposed project. The Corps will also consult with the State Historic Preservation Office under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for properties listed or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, as appropriate.

The Draft EIS is expected to be made available to the public in the summer of 2012.

1. Without-Project Conditions and Damages. Prior to urban development in the 1990s, the beaches within the study area remained relatively stable because of a balanced sediment supply delivered from the San Juan Creek to the Oceanside littoral cell. However, documented historical beach widths above the Mean Sea Level (MSL) line between T Street and Mariposa Point were as narrow as 82 ft (25 m) in the winter months during this time period. As a consequence, storm damages occurred in the past ( e.g. 1964, 1983, 1988 and 1993), as the protective buffer beach width was narrow, particularly in the winter season.

Since the 1990s, the project area has experienced chronic, mild, long-term erosion. Shoreline retreat is a result of the decrease of fluvial sand supply resulting from the concreting of creeks and rivers, upstream dams, and urban development. Continued future shoreline retreat is expected to result in storm waves breaking directly upon the railroad ballast, which significantly threatens the operation of the rail corridor. Continued future shoreline retreat also will subject public facilities to storm wave-induced damages. These facilities, maintained by the City of San Clemente, include the Marine Safety Building, public restroom facilities located on the beach, and lifeguard stations. If no action is taken, public properties and structures are expected to be susceptible to damages caused by erosion (including land loss and undermining of structures), inundation (structures), and wave attack (structures, railroad).

2. Railroad Damages. The Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) railroad line, separating the active coastline from the coastal bluff and adjacent backshore development, has experienced railway traffic service delays as a result of the narrowing shorelines. These delays occur when storm wave run-up exceeds the elevation of the Southern California Regional Railroad Authority (SCRRA) protective revetments or the crest of the railroad ballast in the without-revetment segments. Two service disruption incidents of approximately 24 hours occurred in the 1960s and 1970's at Mariposa Point (north of the Pier) and at a location south of the Pier, respectively. In response, the SCRRA and Orange County Transportation Authority have constructed un-engineered riprap revetment in areas where the railroad ballast and tracks are vulnerable to storm wave-induced damages. Over the past ten years, storm wave attack in the study area has restricted train services periodically and during the 1998 El Nino, the protective revetment structure sustained severe damage that significantly slowed train speeds. The railroad line is used to service various national defense facilities between Los Angeles and San Diego.

3. Coastal Storm Damages. Public beach facilities located have experienced damages from storms, as the existing beach has historically acted as a buffer against storm wave attack but has been narrowed. These facilities include the Marine Safety Building, public restroom facilities located on the back beach, lifeguard stations, parking areas, and paving near the Pier. The 1983 El Nino storm season resulted in an estimated damage of $3,277,000 to public beach facilities in the study area. If no action is taken, the City of San Clemente's properties and structures will be susceptible to future damages caused by erosion (including loss of land and of properties), inundation, and wave attack. The majority of the National Economic Development (NED) damages/costs are related to LOSSAN railroad protection/construction and O&M costs. On an annual basis, the LOSSAN costs are $1,280,000 and the annualized value of all damage is $1,424,000.

4. Internet. The FEIS is also available for review on the following Web sites: Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Internet site: http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/cms/index.php. City of San Clemente's Web site is: http://san-clemente.org/sc/News.aspx?PageID=1.

5. The Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued no sooner than 30 days after publication of the notice of availability in the Federal Register by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The NOI to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Skagit River General Investigation Study (previously advertised as the Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Study), Skagit County, Washington was published in the July 29, 2011 Federal Register (76 FR 45543) for review and comment. Comments regarding the NOI were required to be received on or before August 29, 2011. During the comment period, requests to extend the comment period were received.

In response to these requests, the comment period for the NOI has been extended through September 9, 2011.

The GSEP is a proposed concentrating solar electrical generating facility using parabolic trough technology with a dry-cooling system and associated facilities located on approximately 1,950 acres of BLM-administered Federal land in Riverside County, California, approximately 27 miles east of the unincorporated community of Desert Center and 25 miles west of the Arizona-California border city of Blythe. The GSEP will consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a net electrical output of 125 MW each, resulting in a total net electrical output of 250 MW. In addition to the generating facility, the project includes a distribution line, a 14-mile electrical transmission line, fiber-optic lines, a natural-gas pipeline, and a 6.5-mile access road. A double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line will be constructed to connect to the Southern California Edison Colorado River substation via the existing Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line between the Julian Hinds and Buck substations. The linear facilities will encompass approximately 90 acres outside the proposed project site.

On January 31, 2007, BLM's Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office received an application pursuant to Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1761) for a right-of-way (ROW) to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a project identified as the NextEra Ford Dry Lake Solar Power Plant on BLM-administered Federal land in Riverside County, California. In June 2009, the applicant notified BLM that the company name was being changed to Genesis Solar, LLC, and the project became known as the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP). The BLM California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan requires that all sites associated with power generation or transmission not identified in the CDCA Plan be considered through the plan amendment process. BLM approved the Proposed Plan Amendment to the CDCA Plan to allow the GSEP and approved a solar energy ROW to Genesis Solar, LLC, for the project; on November 4, 2010, the Secretary of the Interior approved these decisions.

In June 2010, Genesis Solar, LLC applied to DOE for a loan guarantee under Title XVII of EPAct 2005, as amended by Section 406 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (Recovery Act) On September 1, 2010, DOE invited the applicant to submit a Part II application in accordance with the DOE Federal Loan Guarantee Solicitation for Commercial Technology Renewable Energy Generation Projects under the Financial Institution Partnership Program, No. DE-FOA-0000166. On November 17, 2010, Genesis Solar, LLC submitted its Part II application for an $800 million loan guarantee to support the financing of the GSEP.

BLM was the lead Federal agency in the preparation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project EIS, and DOE was a cooperating agency pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement between DOE and BLM signed in January 2010. DOE reviewed the content of the draft EIS and provided comments to BLM to ensure that the DOE NEPA regulations (10 Code of Federal Regulations part 1021) were satisfied.

On November 23, 2009, the BLM published the “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Staff Assessment for the NextEra Ford Dry Lake Solar Power Plant, Riverside County, CA, and Possible Land Use Plan Amendment” in the Federal Register (74 FR 61167), with a 30-day scoping period for public comments that closed on December 23, 2009. The project name later changed to Genesis Solar Energy Project. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS and the Draft CDCA Plan Amendment for GSEP in the Federal Register on April 9, 2010 (75 FR 18204). The Draft EIS was available for a 90-day public comment period, which closed on July 8, 2010. Comments received on the Draft EIS were addressed in the Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Genesis Solar Energy Project, and EPA published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on August 27, 2010 (75 FR 52736). BLM made the Final EIS available for an additional 30-day public review and comment period from August 27 to September 27, 2010. All substantive comments received during the 30-day public review and comment period were responded to in Appendix 1 of the Record of Decision for the Genesis Solar Energy Project and Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Resource Management Plan, Riverside County, CA (BLM ROD). BLM published its ROD in the Federal Register on November 12, 2010 (75 FR 69458). Links to these documents can be found at the BLM Web site: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/energy/fasttrack/genesis/fedstatus.html.

On October 7, 2010, DOE received a comment letter from the California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE) regarding Colorado River water rights and the need for an approved water allocation for GSEP. DOE reviewed the comment responses prepared by BLM and published in the Final EIS and the information provided in the BLM ROD, and concurs with BLM as stated in its ROD that:

BLM considered six alternatives: (1) The project identified in the Final EIS as the Proposed Action (parabolic trough technology with wet cooling); (2) the Dry Cooling Alternative (identified in the Final EIS as the Preferred Alternative and ultimately selected by BLM); (3) the Reduced Acreage Alternative; (4) No Action Alternative A; (5) No Action Alternative B; and (6) No Action Alternative C (under which no ROW grant for the GSEP would be authorized but the CDCA Plan would be amended). Chapter 2 of the Final EIS describes these alternatives in detail, and they are fully analyzed in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final EIS.

The Dry Cooling Alternative, identified as the BLM Selected Alternative in the BLM ROD, requires mitigation measures identified in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS; the complete language of these measures, terms, and conditions is provided in Appendix G, Conditions of Certification, of the Final EIS. BLM has incorporated these requirements as terms and conditions into the ROW. In addition, BLM developed a Compliance Monitoring Plan, which is included as Appendix 6 to the BLM ROD.

The DOE decision is whether or not to issue a loan guarantee to Genesis Solar, LLC for $800 million to support construction and startup of the GSEP. Accordingly, the DOE alternatives in the Final EIS are (1) Issue the loan guarantee for construction and startup of the GSEP under the Dry Cooling Alternative identified as the BLM Selected Alternative in the BLM ROD, and (2) the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not issue a loan guarantee for the project, and it is not likely that Genesis Solar, LLC would implement the project as currently planned.

The BLM ROD identifies three environmentally preferable alternatives: (1) No Action Alternative A, under which BLM would not approve the ROW for the GSEP and would not amend the CDCA Plan; (2) No Action Alternative B, under which BLM would not authorize the ROW for the GSEP but would amend the CDCA Plan to make the project site unavailable for any type of solar energy development; and (3) the Dry Cooling Alternative, under which the project would use dry cooling technology to generate the same energy output using the same footprint but would reduce water consumption by 87%. No Action Alternatives A and B would not have impacts on the ground. However, neither of these alternatives would allow the development of renewable energy, which is a national priority. The Dry Cooling Alternative is the BLM Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS and is identified as the Selected Alternative in the BLM ROD because it allows the development of renewable energy. No wetlands would be filled and no delineated floodplains would be affected under the Dry Cooling Alternative.

DOE has decided that its Alternative 1, to issue a loan guarantee for construction and startup of the GSEP under the Dry Cooling Alternative, is environmentally preferable. DOE has determined that this alternative offers environmental benefits due to a reduction in impacts to water resources, while allowing the project's total generation capacity of 250 MW of renewable energy development. In addition, DOE has determined that this alternative offers substantial environmental benefits due to anticipated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as described in the Final EIS, and that all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm, as described in the BLM ROD and its appendices for the GSEP, are adopted as required mitigation measures by BLM.

As the lead Federal agency for the GSEP, BLM complied with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and interested Native American tribes; complied with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and entered into government-to-government consultations with a number of tribal governments. In addition, BLM consulted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which determined that the project site does not impact waters of the United States and that a Clean Water Act permit will not be required, and the State of California and Riverside County regarding compliance with state and local laws. Section 5.5 of the BLM ROD summarizes consultations with agencies and other entities.

As a part of its own review, DOE verified that the potential environmental impact of acts of terrorism, sabotage or other intentional destructive acts was considered in the Final EIS. DOE concluded that the proposed GSEP presents an unlikely target for an act of terrorism or sabotage. Further, as discussed in the Final EIS, the site security measures provide appropriate levels of security to protect electrical infrastructure from malicious mischief, vandalism, or domestic/foreign terrorist attacks.

DOE has decided to issue a loan guarantee for construction and startup of GSEP under the Dry Cooling Alternative, as described in the Final EIS and BLM ROD.

Approval of the loan guarantee for GSEP responds to the DOE purpose and need pursuant to Section 1705 of EPAct 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511-16514), which was added to EPAct 2005 by the Recovery Act. Section 1705 authorizes a program for rapid deployment of renewable energy projects and related manufacturing facilities, electric power transmission projects, and leading-edge biofuels projects. The primary purposes of the Recovery Act are job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and state and local fiscal stabilization. The Section 1705 program is designed to address the economic conditions of the Nation, in part, through renewable energy, transmission, and leading-edge biofuels projects. Eligible projects must commence construction by September 30, 2011.

The GSEP project for which DOE has decided to issue a loan guarantee includes mitigation measures, terms, and conditions applied by BLM in its ROW. The mitigation measures, terms, and conditions represent practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental impacts from the selected alternative (the Dry Cooling Alternative). BLM is lead Federal agency for the GSEP project under NEPA and is responsible for ensuring compliance with all adopted mitigation measures, terms, and conditions for the GSEP project set forth in the Final EIS and ROD. The complete language of the mitigation measures, terms, and conditions is provided in Appendix G of the Final EIS, and the Compliance Monitoring Plan is provided in Appendix 6 of the BLM ROD. BLM has also incorporated the mitigation measures, terms, and conditions into the ROW as terms and conditions.

The DOE loan guarantee agreement requires that the applicant comply with all applicable laws and the terms of the ROW, including mitigation measures. An applicant's failure to comply with applicable laws and the ROW would constitute a default. Upon continuance of a default, DOE would have the right under the loan guarantee agreement between DOE and the applicant to exercise usual and customary remedies. To ensure that the applicant so performs, the Loan Programs Office monitors all operative loan guarantee transactions.

Title III, part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified, established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances, which includes the electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that are the focus of this notice. 1 Part B includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, part B authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results which measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating costs of a covered product, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for automatic electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers is contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1.

DOE's regulations for covered products contain provisions allowing a person to seek a waiver for a particular basic model from the test procedure requirements for covered consumer products when (1) The petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) when prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).

The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(l). Waivers remain in effect pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(m).

Any interested person who has submitted a petition for waiver may also file an application for interim waiver of the applicable test procedure requirements. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(2). The Assistant Secretary will grant an interim waiver request if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the interim waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(g).

On July 19, 2011, Samsung filed a petition for waiver for new refrigerator-freezer models from the test procedure applicable to residential electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A1. Samsung is designing new refrigerator-freezers that incorporate multiple defrost cycles. In its petition, Samsung seeks a waiver from the existing DOE test procedure applicable to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers under 10 CFR part 430 because the existing test procedure does not account for multiple defrost cycles. Therefore, Samsung has asked to use an alternate test procedure that is the same as the test procedure DOE published in an interim final rule (75 FR 78810, December 16, 2010). On January 27, 2011, Samsung had filed a similar petition for waiver and request for interim waiver for other basic models of refrigerator-freezers that incorporate multiple defrost cycles.

Samsung also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. Under 10 CFR 430.27(b)(2), each application for interim waiver must demonstrate likely success of the Petition for Waiver and address the economic hardship and/or competitive disadvantage that is likely to result absent a favorable determination on the application for interim waiver.” An interim waiver may be granted if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the application for interim waiver is denied; if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted; and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(g).

DOE has determined that Samsung's application for interim waiver does not provide sufficient market, equipment price, shipments and other manufacturer impact information to permit DOE to evaluate the economic hardship Samsung might experience absent a favorable determination on its application for interim waiver. DOE understands, however, that absent an interim waiver, Samsung's products would not be accurately tested and rated for energy consumption because the current energy test procedure does not include test procedures for products with multiple defrost cycle types. Therefore, it appears likely that Samsung's petition for waiver will be granted. In addition, it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a decision on the petition for waiver. DOE previously granted a waiver to Samsung for other basic models incorporating multiple defrost technology. In addition, DOE's test procedure interim final rule would resolve the technical issues in this waiver, but use of the test procedure would not be required until the compliance date of any amended standards (approximately 2014). (75 FR 78810, December 16, 2010).

For the reasons stated above, DOE grants Samsung's application for interim waiver from testing of its refrigerator-freezer product line containing relative humidity sensors and adaptive control anti-sweat heaters. Therefore, it is ordered that:

The application for interim waiver filed by Samsung is hereby granted for Samsung's refrigerator-freezer product lines that incorporate multiple defrost cycles subject to the specifications and conditions below.

1. Samsung shall not be required to test or rate its refrigerator-freezer product lines that incorporate multiple defrost cycles on the basis of the test procedure under 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix A1.

2. Samsung shall be required to test and rate its refrigerator-freezer product line containing relative humidity sensors and adaptive control anti-sweat heaters according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in section IV, “Alternate test procedure.”

The interim waiver applies to the following basic model groups:

DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. Samsung may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional models of refrigerator-freezers for which it seeks a waiver from the DOE test procedure. In addition, DOE notes that grant of an interim waiver or waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.

Further, this interim waiver is conditioned upon the presumed validity of statements, representations, and documents provided by the petitioner. DOE may revoke or modify this interim waiver at any time upon a determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics.

For the duration of the interim waiver, Samsung shall be required to test the products listed above according to the test procedures for residential electric refrigerator-freezers prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A1, except that, for the Samsung products listed above only, include:

1. In section 1, Definitions, the following definition at the end:

“Defrost cycle type” means a distinct sequence of control whose function is to remove frost and/or ice from a refrigerated surface. There may be variations in the defrost control sequence such as the number of defrost heaters energized. Each such variation establishes a separate distinct defrost cycle type. However, defrost achieved regularly during the compressor off-cycles by warming of the evaporator without active heat addition is not a defrost cycle type.

2. In section 4, Test Period, the following at the end:

Systems with Multiple Defrost Frequencies. This section applies to models with long-time automatic or variable defrost control with multiple defrost cycle types, such as models with single compressors and multiple evaporators in which the evaporators have different defrost frequencies. A two-part method shall be used. The first part is a stable period of compressor operation that includes no portions of the defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, that is otherwise the same as the test for a unit having no defrost provisions. The second part is designed to capture the energy consumed during all of the events occurring with the defrost control sequence that are outside of stable operation, and will be conducted separately for each distinct defrost cycle type. For defrost cycle types involving the defrosting of both fresh food and freezer compartments, the freezer compartment temperature shall be used to determine test period start and stop times.

3. In section 5, Test Measurements, the following at the end:

Long-time or Variable Defrost Control for Systems with Multiple Defrost cycle Types.

The energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:

Through today's notice, DOE grants Samsung an interim waiver from the specified portions of the test procedure applicable to Samsung's new line of refrigerator-freezers with multiple defrost cycles and announces receipt of Samsung's petition for waiver from those same portions of the test procedure. DOE publishes Samsung's petition for waiver pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv). The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology to determine the energy consumption of Samsung's specified refrigerator-freezers with multiple defrost cycles. Samsung is required to follow this alternate procedure as a condition of its interim waiver, and DOE is considering including this alternate procedure in its subsequent Decision and Order.

DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is: Michael Moss, Director of Corporate Environmental Affairs, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 18600 Broadwick St., Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220. All submissions received must include the agency name and case number for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies to DOE: one copy of the document including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) respectfully submits this request Application for Interim Waiver and Petition for Waiver to the Department of Energy (“DOE” or “the Department”) for single compressor refrigerator-freezers with multiple defrost cycles that are manufactured by Samsung.

10 CFR Part 430.27(a)(1) allows a person to submit a petition to waive for a particular basic model any requirements of § 430.23 upon the grounds that the basic model contains one or more design characteristics which either prevent testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.

Current test procedures as prescribed in Appendix A1 to Subpart B of Part 430 (“Appendix A1”) do not adequately provide a way for Samsung to accurately represent the energy consumption of its refrigerator-freezers with multiple defrost cycles. DOE concurred with Samsung's understanding in the interim waiver granted to Samsung in 76 FR 16760. 2 Additionally, DOE communicated that all manufacturers planning on marketing refrigerator-freezers with multiple defrost cycles must seek a waiver from the Department. 3

In 75 FR 78810 (December 16, 2010), DOE issued an interim final rule for Appendix A (“Appendix A”), that effectively addresses test methodologies for refrigerator-freezers with multiple defrost cycles. Samsung requests that the Appendix A test methodology be expeditiously granted for Samsung refrigerator-freezers with multiple defrost cycles. Meanwhile, Samsung believes for the time being that the existing energy efficiency limits are adequate. Samsung therefore does not seek an alternate energy efficiency limit for these models at this time. Samsung requests that the efficient limits under § 430.32(a) are applied to the following Samsung manufactured basic models:

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver. I will be happy to discuss should any questions arise.

Background: The CASAC was established pursuant to the under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409D(d)(2), to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to the criteria for air quality standards, research related to air quality, sources of air pollution, and the strategies to attain and maintain air quality standards and to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the AMMS will hold a public teleconference call to provide advice through the chartered CASAC on EPA's draft Near-Road NO 2 Monitoring Technical Assistance Document.

In February 2010, EPA promulgated new minimum monitoring requirements for the nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) monitoring network in support of a newly revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 1-hour NO 2 (75 FR 6474). In the new monitoring requirements, state and local air monitoring agencies are required to install near-road NO 2 monitoring stations at locations where peak hourly NO 2 concentrations are expected to occur within the near-road environment in larger urban areas. State and local air agencies are required to consider traffic volumes, fleet mix, roadway design, traffic congestion patterns, local terrain or topography, meteorology, population exposure and other factors in determining where a required near-road NO 2 monitor should be placed. In August 2010, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) requested that CASAC review the initial phase of EPA's Near Road project, and CASAC issued a final report to the EPA Administrator in November 2010 entitled “Review of the ‘Near-road Guidance Document—Outline' and ‘Near-road Monitoring Pilot Study Objectives and Approach'.” OAR considered those recommendations from CASAC and has developed a draft technical document entitled “Near-Road NO 2 Monitoring Technical Assistance Document—DRAFT August 11, 2011” to provide state and local air monitoring agencies with recommendations and ideas on how to successfully implement near-road NO 2 monitors required by the 2010 revisions to the NO 2 minimum monitoring requirements. Since the establishment of near-road NO 2 monitoring stations will create an infrastructure that will likely be capable of housing multi-pollutant ambient air monitoring equipment, OAR's draft Technical Assistance Document also discusses other pollutants of interest that exist in the near-road environment, including definitions, basis of interest, and measurement methods. OAR requested CASAC advice on how to improve the near-road NO 2 Monitoring draft Technical Assistance Document.

Availability of Meeting Materials: The agenda and materials in support of these teleconference calls will be placed on the EPA CASAC Web site at http://www.epa.gov/casac in advance of the teleconference call.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's Federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a Federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office.

Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit comments for a Federal advisory committee to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for CASAC to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment on the Subcommittee membership and/or this advisory activity should contact the Designated Federal Officer for the relevant advisory committee directly.

Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at this public teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Interested parties should contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, DFO, in writing (preferably via e-mail), at the contact information noted above, by September 22, 2011 to be placed on the list of public speakers for the teleconference.

Written Statements: Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by September 22, 2011 so that the information may be made available to the Panel for their consideration. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in electronic format via e-mail (acceptable file formats: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the CASAC Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Edward Hanlon at the phone number or e-mail address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The BOSC was established by the EPA to provide advice, information, and recommendations regarding the ORD research program. The SAB and BOSC are Federal Advisory Committees chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB and BOSC will hold a joint public teleconference to discuss a draft report providing advice on Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) new strategic directions for research. The SAB and BOSC will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

The Office of Research and Development is restructuring its research programs for FY 2012 to better understand environmental problems and inform sustainable solutions to meet EPA's strategic goals. The SAB and BOSC held a public meeting on June 29-30, 2011 to receive briefings and discuss draft research frameworks for ORD's six major research programs (76 FR 32198-32199). The SAB and BOSC will hold a public teleconference on September 19, 2011 to discuss their draft joint advisory report. Additional information about SAB and BOSC advice on new ORD strategic research directions can be found on the SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/Strategic%20Research%20Directions?OpenDocument.

Availability of Meeting Materials: A meeting agenda and other materials for the meeting will be placed on the SAB Web site at http://epa.gov/sab .

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information for consideration on the topics included in this advisory activity. Oral Statements: To be placed on the public speaker list for the September 19, 2011 meeting, interested parties should notify Dr. Angela Nugent, DFO, by e-mail no later than September 15, 2011. Individuals making oral statements will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Written Statements: Written statements for the September 19, 2011 meeting should be received in the SAB Staff Office by September 15, 2011, so that the information may be made available to the SAB and BOSC for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, WordPerfect, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). Submitters are asked to provide electronic versions of each document submitted with and without signatures, because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Nugent at the phone number or e-mail address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

The proposed consent decree would resolve a portion of a lawsuit seeking to compel the Administrator to take final action under sections 110(k)(2) and (3) of the CAA to either approve or disapprove, approve in part, or disapprove in part SIP submittals or portions of submittals meeting applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The SIP submissions at issue are the “infrastructure” SIPs that States are required to submit to meet the basic structural requirements to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS within the 20 named States. Under the consent decree, various deadlines have been established for EPA to take final action for the States of Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Maine, Ohio, New Mexico, Delaware, Kentucky, Nevada, Arkansas, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Arizona, Georgia and West Virginia. No later than 15 business days after taking each action, EPA shall send the notice(s) of such action to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication in the Federal Register . After EPA fulfills its obligations under the decree, the Plaintiffs and EPA agree to file a joint motion for voluntary dismissal, with prejudice.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2011-0618) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through http://www.regulations.gov. You may use http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search.”

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (e-mail) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

The proposed settlement agreement would resolve a lawsuit seeking to compel the Administrator to take various actions related to the “infrastructure” SIP submissions of specific states for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. First, the proposed settlement agreement would require the Administrator either to promulgate a FIP, or to approve a SIP submission from the state in lieu thereof, pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), addressing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2), for North Dakota, Hawaii, Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Maryland, Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida and Georgia with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Second, the proposed settlement agreement would also require the Administrator to take final action pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(2), on the SIP submittals or portions of submittals addressing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2), for Maryland, Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arizona with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

The proposed settlement agreement provides various dates by which EPA must propose action or take final action with respect to each of these duties, depending upon the state in question and the element or elements of section 110(a)(2) at issue. No later than 15 business days following signature on each notice related to a proposed or final action specified in the proposed settlement agreement, EPA is required to send the notice to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication in the Federal Register. After EPA fulfills all of its obligations under the agreement to take actions required by section 110(c) or section 110(k) with respect to the various elements of section 110(a)(2) for the respective states, the Plaintiffs agree to file a motion for voluntary dismissal, with prejudice.

In addition to specific actions required by section 110(c)(1) and section 110(k), the proposed settlement agreement obligates EPA to respond to a petition for rulemaking from the Sierra Club concerning existing provisions in SIPs related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (“SSM”) that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such emissions. The proposed settlement agreement requires EPA either to grant or to deny the petition with respect to the allegedly illegal SSM provisions by a specified date. If EPA grants the petition with respect to a provision, EPA agrees to promulgate either a SIP call pursuant to section 110(k)(5) or an error correction pursuant to section 110(k)(6), as EPA deems appropriate.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2011-0722) contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through http://www.regulations.gov. You may use http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search”.

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (e-mail) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization (ERDDAA) Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for EPA actions. The EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) has requested the SAB to review EPA's draft air emission estimating methodologies (EEMs) for animal feeding operations (AFOs). EPA developed the draft methodologies to address requirements of a voluntary air compliance consent agreement signed in 2005 between EPA and nearly 14,000 broiler, dairy, egg layer, and swine AFO operations. The goals of the agreement are to reduce air pollution, monitor AFO emissions, promote a national consensus on methodologies for estimating emissions from AFOs, and ensure compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

The pollutants monitored under the agreement include: Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. As part of the agreement, EPA is charged with developing EEMs for broiler, dairy, egg layer, and swine AFO sectors. EPA has requested the SAB to provide advice on scientific issues associated with EPA's development of the EEMs.

In response to EPA's request, the SAB Staff Office will form an expert panel to review EPA's development of AFO air EEMs. As a Federal Advisory Committee, the SAB conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.2) and related regulations. The SAB Panel will provide advice through the chartered SAB and comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedures.

Request for Nominations: The SAB Staff Office is seeking public nominations of nationally recognized experts with demonstrated expertise and experience in the following areas related to AFO air emission estimation methods: Air emissions from broiler, dairy, egg layer, and/or swine production animal feeding operations; air monitoring and detection methods; exposure assessment; environmental statistics; emission and statistical modeling; and uncertainty analysis.

Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals in the areas of expertise described above for possible service on this expert panel. Nominations should be submitted in electronic format (preferred over hard copy) following the instructions for “Nominating Experts to Advisory Panels and Ad Hoc Committees Being Formed,” provided on the SAB Web site. The instructions can be accessed through the “Nomination of Experts” link on the blue navigational bar at the SAB Web site http://www.epa.gov/sab . To receive full consideration, nominations should include all of the information requested below.

EPA's SAB Staff Office requests contact information about the person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's resume or curriculum vita; sources of recent grant and/or contract support; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational background, research activities, and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations.

Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, DFO, as indicated above in this notice. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than September 22, 2011. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.

The EPA SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of nominations. The names and bio-sketches of qualified nominees identified by respondents to this Federal Register notice, and additional experts identified by the SAB Staff, will be posted in a List of Candidates on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab . Public comments on this List of Candidates will be accepted for 21 days. The public will be requested to provide relevant information or other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating candidates.

For the EPA SAB Staff Office a review panel includes candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. In forming this expert panel, the SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the List of Candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria to be used for panel membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a lack of impartiality; (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees and advisory panels; and, (f) for the Panel as a whole, diversity of expertise and viewpoints.

The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between a person's public responsibilities (which includes membership on an EPA federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/epaform3110-48.pdf .

The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects subcommittees and review panels is described in the following document: Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-EC-02-010), which is posted on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ec02010.pdf .

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “PET Drug Applications—Content and Format for NDAs and ANDAs.” The guidance is intended to assist the manufacturers of certain PET drugs—fludeoxyglucose F 18 injection, ammonia N 13 injection, and sodium fluoride F 18 injection—in submitting NDAs and ANDAs in accordance with the FD&C Act and FDA regulations. The guidance states that to continue marketing these PET drugs for clinical use, manufacturers of these drugs must submit NDAs of the type described in section 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2)) or ANDAs under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act by December 12, 2011. The guidance further explains when submission of a 505(b)(2) application or ANDA is appropriate and describes the information that manufacturers of these PET drugs include in each type of application.

A revised draft guidance of the same title was announced in the Federal Register on February 3, 2011 (76 FR 6143), and Docket No. FDA-2000-D-1542 was open for comments until April 4, 2011. The February 3, 2011, draft guidance was a revision of the document “Draft Guidance for Industry on the Content and Format of New Drug Applications and Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Certain Positron Emission Tomography Drug Products,” issued on March 10, 2000 (65 FR 13010). The February 3, 2011, revised guidance was issued as a draft for comment because FDA's perspective has changed significantly since the issuance of the March 2000 draft guidance. We received comments from industry and professional societies. We have carefully considered and, where appropriate, we have made corrections, added information, or clarified the information in this guidance in response to the comments or on our own initiative.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on the submission of NDAs and ANDAs for PET drugs. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written comments regarding this document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; the collections of information required on Form FDA-356h have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; and the collections of information required on Form FDA-3397 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0297.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs”, as amended in the revisions listed above, requires {or set} strict standards that Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for Federal agencies.

To become certified, an applicant Laboratory/IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a Laboratory/IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.

Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A Laboratory/IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA) which attests that it has met minimum standards.

In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), the following Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:

None.

ACL Laboratories, 8901 W. Lincoln Ave., West Allis, WI 53227, 414-328-7840/800-877-7016, (Formerly: Bayshore Clinical Laboratory).

ACM Medical Laboratory, Inc., 160 Elmgrove Park, Rochester, NY 14624, 585-429-2264.

Advanced Toxicology Network, 3560 Air Center Cove, Suite 101, Memphis, TN 38118, 901-794-5770/888-290-1150.

Aegis Analytical Laboratories, 345 Hill Ave., Nashville, TN 37210, 615-255-2400, (Formerly: Aegis Sciences Corporation, Aegis Analytical Laboratories, Inc.).

Alere Toxicology Services, 1111 Newton St., Gretna, LA 70053, 504-361-8989/800-433-3823, (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Laboratory Specialists, Inc.).

Alere Toxicology Services, 450 Southlake Blvd., Richmond, VA 23236, 804-378-9130, (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.; Kroll Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.).

Baptist Medical Center-Toxicology Laboratory, 11401 I-30, Little Rock, AR 72209-7056, 501-202-2783, (Formerly: Forensic Toxicology Laboratory Baptist Medical Center).

Clinical Reference Lab, 8433 Quivira Road, Lenexa, KS 66215-2802, 800-445-6917.

Doctors Laboratory, Inc., 2906 Julia Drive, Valdosta, GA 31602, 229-671-2281.

DrugScan, Inc., P.O. Box 2969, 1119 Mearns Road, Warminster, PA 18974, 215-674-9310.

ElSohly Laboratories, Inc., 5 Industrial Park Drive, Oxford, MS 38655, 662-236-2609.

Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories*, A Division of the Gamma-Dynacare Laboratory Partnership, 245 Pall Mall Street, London, ONT, Canada N6A 1P4, 519-679-1630.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 7207 N. Gessner Road, Houston, TX 77040, 713-856-8288/800-800-2387.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 69 First Ave., Raritan, NJ 08869, 908-526-2400/800-437-4986, (Formerly: Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.).

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1904 Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919-572-6900/800-833-3984. (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc., CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.; CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Subsidiary of Roche Biomedical Laboratory; Roche CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Member of the Roche Group).

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1120 Main Street, Southaven, MS 38671, 866-827-8042/800-233-6339, (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc.; MedExpress/National Laboratory Center).

LabOne, Inc. d/b/a Quest Diagnostics, 10101 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219, 913-888-3927/800-873-8845, (Formerly: Quest Diagnostics Incorporated; LabOne, Inc.; Center for Laboratory Services, a Division of LabOne, Inc.).

Maxxam Analytics*, 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, ON, Canada L5N 2L8, 905-817-5700, (Formerly: Maxxam Analytics Inc., NOVAMANN (Ontario), Inc.).

MedTox Laboratories, Inc., 402 W. County Road D, St. Paul, MN 55112, 651-636-7466/800-832-3244.

MetroLab-Legacy Laboratory Services, 1225 NE 2nd Ave., Portland, OR 97232, 503-413-5295/800-950-5295.

Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Forensic Toxicology Laboratory, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, 612-725-2088.

National Toxicology Laboratories, Inc., 1100 California Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93304, 661-322-4250/800-350-3515.

One Source Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., 1213 Genoa-Red Bluff, Pasadena, TX 77504, 888-747-3774, (Formerly: University of Texas Medical Branch, Clinical Chemistry Division; UTMB Pathology-Toxicology Laboratory).

Pacific Toxicology Laboratories, 9348 DeSoto Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, 800-328-6942, (Formerly: Centinela Hospital Airport Toxicology Laboratory).

Pathology Associates Medical Laboratories, 110 West Cliff Dr., Spokane, WA 99204, 509-755-8991/800-541-7891x7.

Phamatech, Inc., 10151 Barnes Canyon Road, San Diego, CA 92121, 858-643-5555.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 1777 Montreal Circle, Tucker, GA 30084, 800-729-6432, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories).

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 400 Egypt Road, Norristown, PA 19403, 610-631-4600/877-642-2216, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories).

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 8401 Fallbrook Ave., West Hills, CA 91304, 800-877-2520, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories).

S.E.D. Medical Laboratories, 5601 Office Blvd., Albuquerque, NM 87109, 505-727-6300/800-999-5227.

South Bend Medical Foundation, Inc., 530 N. Lafayette Blvd., South Bend, IN 46601, 574-234-4176 x1276.

Southwest Laboratories, 4625 E. Cotton Center Boulevard, Suite 177, Phoenix, AZ 85040, 602-438-8507/800-279-0027.

St. Anthony Hospital Toxicology Laboratory, 1000 N. Lee St., Oklahoma City, OK 73101, 405-272-7052.

STERLING Reference Laboratories, 2617 East L Street, Tacoma, Washington 98421, 800-442-0438.

Toxicology & Drug Monitoring Laboratory, University of Missouri Hospital & Clinics, 301 Business Loop 70 West, Suite 208, Columbia, MO 65203, 573-882-1273.

Toxicology Testing Service, Inc., 5426 N.W. 79th Ave., Miami, FL 33166, 305-593-2260.

US Army Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory, 2490 Wilson St., Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-5235, 301-677-7085.

*The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.

Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory ( Federal Register , July 16, 1996) as meeting the minimum standards of the Mandatory Guidelines published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809). After receiving DOT certification, the laboratory will be included in the monthly list of HHS-certified laboratories and participate in the NLCP certification maintenance program.

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective August 1, 2011.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of South Dakota is hereby amended to include the Individual Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 13, 2011.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gregory W. Eaton, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Donald L. Keldsen as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Montana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 17, 2011.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 27, 2011.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 18, 2011, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gerard M. Stolar, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

The following areas of the State of Louisiana have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under ADDRESSES . Please include the Federal Register notice publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in your request or submission. We will not consider requests or comments sent to an e-mail or address not listed under ADDRESSES . If you provide an e-mail address in your request for copies of applications, we will attempt to respond to your request electronically.

Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES ).

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES . The public may review documents and other information applicants have sent in support of the application unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), require that we invite public comment before final action on these permit applications.

The applicant requests a permit to import salvage biological materials from Asian wild ass ( Equus hemionus hemionus ) from the wild in Mongolia for the purpose of scientific research.

The applicant requests a permit to purchase in interstate commerce one male captive-bred Andean condor ( Vultur gryphus ), for the purpose of enhancement of the species through conservation education and captive propagation.

The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from jackass penguins ( Spheniscus demersus ) collected in the wild in the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of scientific research.

The applicant requests a permit to purchase through interstate commerce DNA samples from captive-bred non-human primates from the following species: lowland gorilla ( Gorilla gorilla gorilla ), white-cheeked gibbon ( Hylobates leucogenys ), Siamang ( Hylobates syndactylus ), ring-tailed lemur ( Lemur catta ), bonobo ( Pan paniscus ), chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes ), and Sumatran orangutan ( Pongo pygmaeus abelii ) from Coriell Cell Repository, Camden, New Jersey, for the purpose of scientific research.

The applicant requests a permit to export and reimport non-living museum specimens of endangered and threatened species previously accessioned into the applicant's collection for scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

On March 13, 2007, the Department of the Interior published a notice of establishment of the Committee in the Federal Register (72 FR 11373). The Committee's purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) on developing effective measures to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and their habitats related to land-based wind energy facilities. All Committee members serve without compensation. In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), a copy of the Committee's charter is filed with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration; Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate; Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives; and the Library of Congress. The Secretary appointed 22 individuals to the Committee on October 24, 2007, representing the varied interests associated with wind energy development and its potential impacts to wildlife species and their habitats. The Committee provided its recommendations to the Secretary on March 4, 2010.

The Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines were made available for public comment on February 18, 2011, with a comment-period ending date of May 19, 2011 (76 FR 9590). The purpose of the Guidelines, once finalized, will be to provide recommendations on measures to avoid, minimize, and compensate for effects to fish, wildlife, and their habitats.

Please note that the meeting location is accessible to wheelchair users. If you require additional accommodations, please notify us at least 1 week in advance of the meeting.

All Committee meetings are open to the public. The public has an opportunity to comment at all Committee meetings.

We require that all persons planning to attend in person or participate via webcast register at http://www.fws.gov/windenergy no later than September 13, 2011. We will give preference to registrants based on date and time of registration. Limited standing room at the meeting may be available if all seats are filled.

This document provides notice that the BLM Burley Field Office, Burley, Idaho, intends to prepare an EIS for grazing permit renewals in the Shoshone Basin area, announces the beginning of the scoping process, and seeks public input on issues. The planning area is located in Twin Falls County, Idaho, and encompasses approximately 125,800 acres of public land. The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the EIS, including the alternatives. Preliminary issues for the planning area have been identified by BLM personnel; Federal, State, and local agencies; and other stakeholders. The primary issue is the cumulative effects to a highly mobile sage-grouse population. These effects come from a variety of sources, including the proposed China Mountain Wind Project, Jack Ranch Wind Project (private), Gollaher Mountain Wind Project (private), Southwest Intertie (500 kV) transmission line, Gateway West (500kV) transmission line, numerous wildfires, and grazing.

The Burley Field Office will consult with the Shoshone-Paiute and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on this action during regular consultation proceedings and briefings. The BLM will also brief county commissioners, Congressional delegations and grazing permittees during the EIS process.

An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for the Horse Creek, Magic Common, South Big Creek, Kerr Lost Creek, and Baker Lost Creek allotments in the Shoshone Basin. An EA was also prepared for grazing permit renewal for the Western Stock Growers, Hub Butte, and Squaw Joe allotments. In those EAs, the BLM concluded that direct and indirect impacts from livestock grazing alone were not significant. However, large energy projects proposed in the area could, if constructed result in significant cumulative effects on Greater sage-grouse. The EIS will explore potential impacts from proposed grazing against the backdrop of wildfire and the development of energy projects that are reasonably foreseeable in the Browns Bench/Shoshone Basin area.

You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. To be most helpful, you should submit comments by the close of the 30-day scoping period. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The public is also encouraged to help identify any other management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the EIS.

The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Range management, wildlife biology, archaeology, riparian, soils, and outdoor recreation.

Silver State Solar, LLC, has submitted a right-of-way (ROW) application for the construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of a solar energy generation facility on 13,043 acres of public land east of Primm, Nevada. The ROW application is assigned BLM case number NVN-089530. This application expands on ROW application NVN-085801. The proposed solar energy project would consist of photovoltaic panels and related ROW appurtenances, including a substation and switchyard facilities, and would produce about 400 megawatts of electricity.

The Supplemental EIS will address new information associated with NVN-089530 and update as necessary the consideration of NVN-085801, which was analyzed in the Final EIS for the Silver State Solar Energy Project. The Record of Decision signed October 12, 2010 for the Silver State Solar Energy Project did not authorize all phases of application NVN-085801.

Approval of ROW application NVN-089530 will require amendment of the October 1998 Las Vegas RMP in order to address proposed changes in land and resource use within the Jean Lake/Roach Lake Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the Supplemental EIS. At present, the BLM has identified the following preliminary issues: Impacts to threatened and endangered species, visual resources, recreation and off-highway vehicle use; and socioeconomic and cumulative impacts. The Supplemental EIS will analyze the site-specific impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, special designations (SRMA), water resources, geological resources and hazards, hazardous materials handling, land and airspace use, noise, paleontological resources, public health, socioeconomics, soils, traffic and transportation, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, waste management, worker safety, and fire protection; as well as facility-design engineering, efficiency, reliability, transmission-system engineering, transmission line safety, and nuisance issues.

By this notice, the BLM is complying with requirements in 43 CFR 1610.2(c) to notify the public of potential amendments to land use plans. The BLM will integrate the land use planning process with the NEPA process for this project. The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA commenting process to satisfy the public involvement process for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Native American tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with policy. Tribal concerns will be given due consideration, including impacts on Indian trust assets. Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by the BLM's decision on this project, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate as a cooperating agency.

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

Segregation of Lands: An Interim Rule, published in the Federal Register (76 FR 23198) on April 26, 2011, amended the BLM regulations found in 43 CFR parts 2090 and 2800 to provide provisions to allow the BLM to temporarily segregate from the operation of the public land laws, by publication of a Federal Register notice, public lands included in a pending solar energy generation ROW application in order to promote the orderly administration of the public lands. Upon segregation under the Interim Rule, such lands will not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law of 1872 (but not the Mineral Leasing Act or the Materials Act), subject to valid existing rights, for a period of up to 2 years.

This segregation is warranted to allow for the orderly administration of the public lands to facilitate the development of valuable renewable resources and to avoid conflicts between renewable energy generation and mining claims. This temporary segregation does not affect valid existing rights in mining claims located before this segregation notice. Licenses, permits, cooperative agreements, or discretionary land use authorizations of a temporary nature which would not impact lands identified in this notice may be allowed with the approval of an authorized officer of the BLM during the segregative period.

The lands segregated under this Notice are legally described as follows:

The BLM intends to resurvey T. 27 S., R. 59 E., sec. 3, lots 1 through 3. The description will be replaced for those lands upon final approval of the official plat of survey. The segregation of lands identified in this notice will not exceed 2 years from the date of publication. Termination of the segregation, as provided in the Interim Rule, is the date that is the earliest of the following: Upon issuance of a decision by the authorized officer granting, granting with modifications, or denying the application for a ROW; automatically at the end of the 2 year segregation; or upon publication of a Federal Register notice of termination of the segregation. Upon termination of segregation of these lands, all lands subject to this segregation will automatically reopen to appropriation under the public land laws.

The purpose for which the withdrawal was first made for the Panelli Seed Orchard requires this extension in order to continue protection of the unique and important forest genetic resources and the expenditure of Federal funds. The portion of the withdrawal extended by this order will expire on August 27, 2031, unless as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be further extended. The purpose for which the withdrawal for the Quartz Evaluation Plantation was first made no longer exists, so this portion of the withdrawal will expire at the end of its original term on August 27, 2011.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:

1. Public Land Order No. 6874 (56 FR 42540 (1991)), which withdrew National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2), but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, to protect the unique and important forest genetic resources and the expenditure of Federal funds at the Panelli Seed Orchard, is hereby extended for an additional 20-year period until August 27, 2031, only insofar as it affects the following described land:

2. Public Land Order No. 6874 (56 FR 42540 (1991)), will expire on August 27, 2011, only insofar as it affects the following described land, which will not be opened to the mining laws until such time and date as specified in an opening order that will be published separately in the Federal Register pursuant to 43 C.F.R. 2091.6: