Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 54031 

are cancelled because of other agency 

priorities. Publication of this 

announcement does not oblige NOAA to 

award any specific project or to obligate 

any available funds. The Department of 

Commerce Pre-Award Notification 

Requirements for Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements contained in 

the Federal Register notice of December 

30, 2004 (69 FR 78389), are applicable 

to this solicitation. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This document contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the 

PRA. The use of Standard Forms 424, 

424A, 424B, SF-LLL, 269, 272, and CD–

346 has been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the respective control numbers 0348–

0043, 0348–0044, 0348–0040, 0348–

0046, 0348–0039, 0348–0003, and 0605–

0001. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

Executive Order 12866 

This notice has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

It has been determined that this notice 

does not contain policies with 

Federalism implications as that term is 

defined in Executive Order 13132. 

Administrative Procedure Act/ 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Prior notice and an opportunity for 

public comment are not required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other law for rules concerning public 

property, loans, grants, benefits, and 

contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because 

notice and opportunity for comment are 

not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or 

any other law, the analytical 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do 

not apply. Therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis has not been 

prepared. 

Dated: September 7, 2005. 

James W. Balsiger, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18087 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 030805A] 

Incidental Take of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Specified Activities; 

Seismic Retrofit of the Richmond-San 

Rafael Bridge, San Francisco Bay, CA 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions 

of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), notification is hereby given 

that an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) has been issued to 

the California Department of 

Transportation (CALTRANS) to take 

small numbers of marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to seismic 

retrofit construction of the RichmondSan Rafael Bridge (the Bridge), San 

Francisco Bay (SFB), CA. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from September 06, 2005 to September 

06, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the application 

may be obtained by writing to Stephen 

L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

or by telephoning the contacts listed 

here. Documents cited in this notice 

may be viewed, by appointment, during 

regular business hours, at this address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Layne Bolen, NMFS, (301) 713–2289, 

ext. 117 or Monica DeAngelis, NMFS 

Southwest Region, (562) 980–3232. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

to allow, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional taking 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 regulations are issued. 

An authorization may be granted if 

the Secretary finds that the total 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, and that the 

permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking 

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.’’

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. Except 

for certain categories of actions 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]. 

Summary of Request 

On December 16, 2004, NMFS 

received a letter from CALTRANS 

requesting reauthorization of an IHA 

that was first issued to it on December 

16, 1997 (62 FR 67045, December 23, 

1997), was renewed on January 8, 2000 

(65 FR 2375, January 14, 2000), 

September 19, 2001 (66 FR 49165, 

September 26, 2001), September 23, 

2002 (67 FR 61323, September 30, 

2002), and November 19, 2003 (68 FR 

66076, November 25, 2003). The 

authorization renewal request is for the 

possible harassment of small numbers of 

Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and 

possibly some California sea lions 

(Zalophus californianus), incidental to 

seismic retrofit construction of the 

Bridge. 

The Bridge is being seismically 

retrofitted to withstand a future severe 

earthquake. Construction is scheduled 

to extend through the year 2005. A 

detailed description of the work 

planned is contained in the Final 

Natural Environmental Study/Biological 

Assessment for the Richmond-San 

Rafael Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project 

(CALTRANS, 1996). As in the previous 

IHAs, activities will include excavation 

around pier bases, hydro-jet cleaning, 

installation of steel casings around the 

piers with a crane, installation of micropiles, and installation of precast 

concrete jackets. Foundation 

construction will require approximately 

2 months per pier, with construction 

occurring on more than one pier at a 

54032 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 

time. In addition to pier retrofit, 

superstructure construction and tower 

retrofit work may also be carried out. 

Other seismic retrofit work will include: 

1. Installation of isolation bearings, 

needed to strengthen bridge structure; 

2. Reinforcement of lower chord 

members and diagonal trusses by 

bolting new additional steel members 

and gusset plates to the existing 

members; 

3. Cleaning and painting of new and 

existing steel members; 

4. Removal and replacement of the 

truss shoe pins; 

5. Deck rehabilitation and joint 

replacement at various locations on the 

bridge; and 

6. Installation of temporary bracing 

prior to the removal of the steel chevron 

members on the piers followed by the 

installation of permanent Eccentric 

Braced Frames to provide additional 

strength. 

Because seismic retrofit construction 

between piers 52 and 57 has the 

potential to disturb harbor seals hauled 

out on Castro Rocks, an IHA is 

warranted. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of receipt of the application 

and proposed authorization was 

published on April 5, 2005 (70 FR 

17234), and a 30–day public comment 

period was provided on the application 

and proposed authorization. NMFS 

received two comments on this IHA and 

proposed authorization: 

Comment 1: The Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission) reviewed the 

application and concurs that the 

Service’s preliminary determinations 

are reasonable. The Commission 

believes that the proposed mitigation 

measures are appropriate and 

recommends issuance of the IHA as 

proposed. 

Response: NMFS agrees. 

Comment 2: A commenter stated, ‘‘I 

oppose and object to the methods that 

are being used that will kill marine life 

in this area. These seals/sea lions 

populations are already depleted.’’

Response: No take by injury and/or 

death is anticipated, and harassment 

takes will be reduced to the lowest level 

practicable by implementation of the 

proposed work restrictions and 

mitigation measures (see Mitigation). No 

deaths or injuries to marine mammals 

have been reported in association with 

this project since the first IHA issued in 

1997. 

Description of Habitat and Marine 

Mammals Affected by the Activity 

A description of SFB ecosystem and 

its associated marine mammals can be 

found in the CALTRANS application 

(CALTRANS, 1997) and in CALTRANS 

(1996). Castro Rocks are a small chain 

of rocky islands located next to the 

Bridge and approximately 1500 ft (460 

m) north of the Chevron Long Wharf. 

They extend in a southwesterly 

direction for approximately 800 ft (240 

m) from pier 55. The rocks start at about 

55 ft (17 m) from pier 55 (A rock) and 

end at approximately 250 ft (76 m) from 

pier 53 (F rock). The chain of rocks is 

exposed during low tides and inundated 

during high tide. 

Marine Mammals 

General information on harbor seals 

and other marine mammal species 

found in Central California waters can 

be found in Forney et al. (2000, 2001, 

2003), which are available at the 

following URL: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/ 

Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html. 

Please refer to these documents for 

information on these species. The 

marine mammals likely to be affected by 

work in the Bridge area are limited to 

harbor seals and California sea lions. 

Harbor seals are widely distributed in 

the North Atlantic and North Pacific, 

and is the only marine mammal species 

expected to be found regularly in the 

Bridge area. The minimum size of the 

California harbor seal population is 

estimated at 25,720 animals (Forney et 

al., 2003). A more detailed description 

of harbor seals was provided in the 1997 

proposed notification of issuance of an 

authorization (62 FR 46480, September 

3, 1997) with corrections and 

clarifications provided on December 23, 

1997 (62 FR 67045). This information is 

not repeated here, but may be found in 

those Federal Register notices. Pups are 

born in mid- to late-March, peak 

numbers of pups are observed in early 

May, and, by the first week in June, all 

pups are weaned (Kopec and Harvey, 

1995). Estimated total mother and pup 

pairs at Castro Rocks were 35 in 1999, 

40 in 2000 and 40 in 2001 (A. 

Bohorquez pers. comm in Green et al., 

2001). This represents approximately 

22–24 percent of the pups born in SFB 

annually. The maximum number of 

individual pups hauled out at Castro 

Rocks from 2002 to 2004 were 44, 48 

and 56 pups, respectively (Green et al., 

2004). A maximum count of 594 adults 

and immature harbor seals was recorded 

at Castro Rocks in the Winter of 2004 

(Green et al., 2004). 

The California sea lion primarily uses 

the Central SFB area to feed. California 

sea lions are periodically observed at 

Castro Rocks. The minimum population 

size of the California sea lion (U.S. 

stock) is estimated to be 138,881 

(Forney et al., 2003). No pupping or 

regular haulouts occur in the project 

area. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

The impact to the harbor seals and 

California sea lions is expected to be 

disturbance by the presence of workers, 

construction noise, and construction 

vessel traffic. Disturbance from these 

activities is expected to have only a 

short-term negligible impact to 

approximately 600 adult and immature 

harbor seals, 50 harbor seal pups, and 

less than 5 sea lions annually (Green et 

al., 2004; Green, D., pers. comm. August 

26, 2005). These disturbances will be 

reduced to the lowest level practicable 

by implementation of the proposed 

work restrictions and mitigation 

measures (see Mitigation). 

Marine mammal monitoring under 

previous IHAs has been conducted at 

Castro Rocks and at two ‘‘control’’ haulout locations in SFB - Mowry Slough 

and Yerba Buena Island (Green et al., 

2004) since 1998. To date, over 14,000 

hours of observations have been 

conducted at these sites with two-thirds 

of those hours at Castro Rocks. While 

disturbances can consist of head alerts, 

approaches to the water, and flushes 

into the water, only the latter behavior 

is considered by NMFS to be Level B 

harassment under these circumstances. 

At Castro Rocks, of all flush 

disturbances monitored during the day, 

the major harassment sources were 

watercraft (e.g. motorboats, sailboats, 

tankers, kayaks and jet skis) with 0.0990 

disturbances/hr field time (d/hr); 

wildlife (seals and birds) with 0.0635 d/ 

hr; other man-made (debris, workmen 

on bridge, other people) with 0.0695 d/ 

hr; and automobiles with 0.0157 d/hr. 

Construction activities resulted in 

0.0165 d/hr. There were fewer flushes 

observed at night. More detailed 

information on the extent of disturbance 

at Castro Rocks by activities other than 

the requested authorization is available 

in Green et al. (2004). 

During the work period (July 16 

through March 1), the incidental 

harassment of harbor seals and, on rare 

occasions, California sea lions is 

expected to occur on a daily basis. In 

addition, the number of seals disturbed 

will vary daily depending upon tidal 

elevations. Monitoring during 

construction periods by Green et al. 

(2004) indicates that although overall 

seal numbers each month of the year are 

not significantly different across years, 

there are differences in subsite use by 

seals at Castro Rocks during both the 

daytime and nighttime. For example, 

the average number of seals hauled out 

on Castro Rocks (rocks A and C) during 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 54033 

the fall of 2001 (when construction 

activity was taking place within the area 

of the haul-out site) was significantly 

different than the average number of 

seals hauled out on Castro Rocks during 

1998–2000, prior to the construction 

period. For a more detailed discussion 

on the distribution of harbor seals 

during the work and non-work periods 

and levels of impact by various natural 

and anthropogenic disturbance sources, 

please see Green et al. (2004) which is 

available upon request (see ADDRESSES). 

California sea lions have been shown 

to react to pile driving noise by 

porpoising quickly away from the site 

(SRS Technologies, 2001), but it is not 

known whether they will react to 

general construction noise and move 

away from the rocks during construction 

activities. However, sea lions are 

generally thought to be more tolerant of 

human activities than harbor seals and 

are, therefore, less likely to be affected. 

Potential Effects on Habitat 

Short-term impacts of the activities 

are expected to result in a temporary 

reduction in utilization of the Castro 

Rocks haulout site while work is in 

progress or until seals acclimate to the 

disturbance. This will not likely result 

in any permanent reduction in the 

number of seals at Castro Rocks. The 

abandonment of Castro Rocks as a 

harbor seal haulout and rookery is not 

anticipated since existing traffic noise 

from the Bridge, commercial activities at 

the Chevron Long Wharf used for offloading crude oil, and considerable 

recreational boating and commercial 

shipping that currently occur within the 

area have not caused long-term 

abandonment. In addition, mitigation 

measures and work restrictions are 

designed to preclude abandonment. 

Therefore, as described in detail in 

CALTRANS (1996), other than the 

potential short-term abandonment by 

harbor seals of part or all of Castro 

Rocks during retrofit construction, no 

impact on the habitat or food sources of 

marine mammals are likely from this 

construction project. 

Mitigation 

Several mitigation measures to reduce 

the potential for harassment will be 

implemented by CALTRANS as part of 

their activity. With the exception of the 

Concrete Trestle Section, between 9 

p.m. and 7 a.m. no piles will be driven 

(i.e., no repetitive pounding of piles) on 

the Bridge and noise levels will not 

exceed 86 dBA at 50 ft (15 m). Seismic 

retrofitting will cease in the vicinity of 

Castro Rocks (piers 52 through 57) 

during the pupping/molting restriction 

period (March 1 through July 15). 

Previous authorizations (1997–2001) 

required CALTRANS to comply with 

the following mitigation measures: (1) A 

February 15 through July 31 restriction 

on work in the water south of the Bridge 

center line and retrofit work on the 

Bridge substructure, towers, 

superstructure, piers, and pilings from 

piers 52 through 57; (2) no watercraft 

will be deployed by CALTRANS 

employees or contractors during the 

year within the exclusion zone located 

between piers 52 and 57 except for 

when construction equipment is 

required for seismic retrofitting of piers 

52 through 57; and (3) minimize vessel 

traffic to the greatest extent practicable 

in the exclusion zone when conducting 

construction activities between piers 52 

and 57. From 1997 through September 

2002, the boundary of the exclusion 

zone was rectangular in shape (1700 ft 

(518 m) by 800 ft (244 m)), completely 

enclosing Castro Rocks and piers 52 

through 57, inclusive. The northern 

boundary of the exclusion zone was 

located 300 ft (91 m) from the most 

northern tip of Castro Rocks, and the 

southern boundary was located 300 ft 

(91 m) from the most southern tip of 

Castro Rocks. The eastern boundary was 

located 300 ft (91 m) from the most 

eastern tip of Castro Rocks, and the 

western boundary was located 300 ft (91 

m) from the most western tip of Castro 

Rocks. The exclusion zone is restricted 

as a controlled access area and is 

marked off with buoys and warning 

signs for the entire year. 

In 2002 (see 67 FR 61323, September 

30, 2002), NMFS modified the Work/ 

Boat Exclusion Zone (W/BEZ) so that 

the eastern boundary was shifted from 

100 ft (31 m) east of Pier 57 to 100 ft 

(31 m) west of Pier 57. This maintains 

a 400–ft (122–m) ‘‘buffer’’ as opposed to 

the previous 600–ft (183–m) buffer, 

between the work at Pier 57 and ‘‘A’’

rock. This modification is reasonable 

based on observed seal behavior during 

the construction within the W/BEZ that 

harbor seals adjusted their location 

preference on Castro Rocks by moving 

westerly to rocks further from the 

construction (see discussion previously 

in this document). However, 

CALTRANS notes that there has not 

been a statistically significant change in 

the total numbers of animals that utilize 

the Castro Rocks haulout. The eastern 

boundary of the exclusion zone was 

relocated to its original position at 300 

ft (91 m) from the most eastern tip of 

Castro Rocks upon conclusion of work 

at Pier 57. This IHA does not include 

any further changes of the exclusion 

zone and will be identical to the 

previous IHA. 

In addition to shifting the W/BEZ, in 

2002, NMFS extended the period in 

which work was allowed in the vicinity 

of Castro Rocks from February 15th to 

March 1st. CALTRANS requested this 

modification due to unforseen 

circumstances affecting the ability of the 

contractor to the seismic retrofit work 

on Pier 57. The original Work Closure 

Period (February 15–July 31) was 

designed to encompass the entire harbor 

seal pupping and breeding seasons and 

nearly the entire molting season at 

Castro Rocks. Thus, the Work Closure 

Period included the entire pupping 

season at Castro Rocks and a substantial 

pre-pupping period when females are 

moving into pupping areas (see 62 FR 

67045, December 23, 1997). Moving the 

start of the Work Closure Period from 

February 15th to March 1st still 

provides a 2–week window prior to the 

onset of successful pupping (March 

15th), and because NMFS did not find 

scientific evidence indicating that 

female harbor seals need a ‘‘quiet 

period’’ from general noise in order to 

pup successfully, NMFS determined 

that shifting the Work Closure Period 

from February 15th to March 1st would 

not have a significant impact on harbor 

seal pupping. 

In 2002, NMFS also modified the date 

at which work is allowed to start in the 

vicinity of Castro Rocks from August 1st 

to a new date of July 16th. As 

mentioned in previous documents, 

newborn harbor seal pups are able to 

swim immediately after birth (Zeiner et 

al., 1990) and pups are weaned by the 

first week of June. Therefore, 

terminating the Closure Period on July 

16th is not expected to affect pup 

survival. Under previous authorizations, 

the July 31st ending date for the Work 

Closure Period was established to 

protect harbor seals during the molting 

season. However, those documents also 

noted that NMFS believed that it is 

likely that harbor seals evolved adaptive 

mechanisms to deal with exposure to 

the water during the molt. For example, 

on some harbor seal haul-outs (such as 

Castro Rocks) during the molting season 

seals must enter the water once or even 

twice a day due to tidal fluctuations 

limiting access to the haul-out. Also, 

since harbor seals lose hair in patches 

during the molt, they are never 

completely hairless and would not be as 

vulnerable to heat loss in the water 

during this period compared to other 

seals (e.g., elephant seals) that lose their 

all their hair at one time. Finally, NMFS 

notes that if the levels of harbor seal 

disturbance during the molt are 

relatively high, seals are likely to utilize 

other local haul-out sites during the 

54034 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 

molt (DeLong, R., pers. comm. 1997; 

Hanan, D., pers. comm. 1997; Harvey, J., 

pers. comm. 1997). Hanan (1996) found 

that although harbor seals tagged at an 

isolated southern California haul-out 

tended to exhibit site-fidelity during the 

molt, some seals were observed molting 

at other nearby haul-outs. Based on 

these reasons, NMFS determined that 

terminating the Closure Period on July 

16th would not significantly affect 

harbor seals in general or molting seals 

at Castro Rocks in particular. 

Monitoring 

NMFS will require CALTRANS to 

continue to monitor the impact of 

seismic retrofit construction activities 

on harbor seals at Castro Rocks. 

Monitoring will be conducted by one or 

more NMFS-approved monitors. 

CALTRANS is to monitor at least one 

additional harbor seal haulout within 

San Francisco Bay to evaluate whether 

harbor seals use alternative haulout 

areas as a result of seismic retrofit 

disturbance at Castro Rocks. 

The monitoring protocol will be 

divided into the Work Period Phase 

(July 16 through February 28) and the 

Closure Period Phase (March 1 through 

July 15). During the Work Period Phase 

and Closure Period Phase, the 

monitor(s) will conduct observations of 

seal behavior at least 3 days/week for 

approximately one tidal cycle each day 

at Castro Rocks. The following data will 

be recorded: (1) number of seals and sea 

lions on site; (2) date; (3) time; (4) tidal 

height; (5) number of adults, subadults, 

and pups; (6) number of individuals 

with red pelage; (7) number of females 

and males; (8) number of molting seals 

and sea lions; and (9) details of any 

observed disturbances. Concurrently, 

the monitor(s) will record general 

construction activity, location, duration, 

and noise levels. At least two nights/ 

week, the monitor will conduct a harbor 

seal and sea lion census after midnight 

at Castro Rocks. In addition, during the 

Work Period Phase and prior to any 

construction between piers 52 and 57, 

inclusive, the monitor(s) will conduct 

baseline observations of seal and sea 

lion behavior at Castro Rocks and at the 

alternative site(s) once a day for a period 

of five consecutive days immediately 

before the initiation of construction in 

the area to establish pre-construction 

behavioral patterns. During the Work 

Period and Closure Period Phases, the 

monitor(s) will conduct observations of 

seal and sea lion behavior, and collect 

appropriate data, at the alternative Bay 

haulout at least three days/week (Work 

Period) and two days/week (Closure 

Period), during a low tide. 

In addition, NMFS will require that, 

immediately following the completion 

of the seismic retrofit construction of 

the Bridge, the monitor(s) will conduct 

observations of seal and sea lion 

behavior, at Castro Rocks, at least five 

days/week for approximately 1 tidal 

cycle (high tide to high tide) each day, 

for one week/month during the months 

of April, July, October, and January. At 

least two nights/week during this same 

period, the monitor will conduct an 

additional harbor seal and sea lion 

census after midnight. 

Reporting 

Under previous IHAs, CALTRANS 

has provided monitoring reports (Green 

et al., 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004) that are 

used by NMFS to help assess the 

effectiveness of the mitigation measures 

and corroborate our negligible impact 

determination. Copies of these reports 

are available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES). 

CALTRANS will provide weekly 

reports to the Southwest Regional 

Administrator (Regional Administrator), 

NMFS, including a summary of the 

previous week’s monitoring activities 

and an estimate of the number of harbor 

seals and sea lions that may have been 

disturbed as a result of seismic retrofit 

construction activities. These reports 

will provide dates, time, tidal height, 

maximum number of harbor seals 

ashore, number of adults, sub-adults 

and pups, number of females/males, 

number of harbor seals with a red 

pelage, and any observed disturbances. 

A description of retrofit activities at the 

time of observation and any sound 

pressure levels measurements made at 

the haulout will also be provided. A 

draft 6–month interim report must be 

submitted to NMFS by March 06, 2006. 

Because seismic retrofit activities may 

continue beyond the date of expiration 

of this IHA (presumably under a new 

IHA), a draft final report must be 

submitted to the Regional Administrator 

within 90 days after the expiration of 

this IHA. A final report must be 

submitted to the Regional Administrator 

within 30 days after receiving comments 

from the Regional Administrator on the 

draft final report. If no comments are 

received from NMFS, the draft final 

report will be considered to be the final 

report. 

CALTRANS will provide NMFS with 

a follow-up report on the postconstruction monitoring activities 

within 18 months of project completion 

in order to evaluate whether haulout 

patterns are similar to the pre-retrofit 

haul-out patterns at Castro Rocks. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) in 1997 that concluded 

that the impacts of CALTRANS’ seismic 

retrofit construction of the RichmondSan Rafael Bridge will not have a 

significant impact on the human 

environment. A copy of that EA, which 

includes the Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) is available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES). This action has 

not changed significantly from the 

action analyzed in the 1997 EA. 

Therefore, this action is not expected to 

change the analysis or conclusion of the 

1997 EA. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

On January 27, 1997, NMFS 

completed consultation under section 7 

of the ESA with the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) on Caltrans’

proposed seismic retrofit work on the 

Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. That 

consultation concluded that the project 

is not likely to adversely affect winterrun chinook salmon. Because the 

proposed underlying action has not 

changed significantly from that 

considered in the consultation, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that 

issuance of an IHA will not lead to any 

effects to listed species nor critical 

habitat for any species apart from those 

that were considered in the consultation 

on FHWA’s action. 

Conclusions 

NMFS has determined that the shortterm impact of the seismic retrofit 

construction of the Bridge, as described 

in this document, should result, at 

worst, in the temporary modification in 

behavior by small numbers of harbor 

seals and, possibly, by small numbers of 

California sea lions. While behavioral 

modifications, including temporarily 

vacating the haulout, may be made by 

these species to avoid the resultant 

visual and acoustic disturbance, this 

action is expected to have a negligible 

impact on the animals. In addition, no 

take by injury and/or death is 

anticipated, and harassment takes will 

be at the lowest level practicable due to 

incorporation of the mitigation 

measures mentioned previously in this 

document. 

Authorization 

For the reasons previously discussed, 

NMFS has reissued an IHA for a 1–year 

period, for the incidental harassment of 

harbor seals and California sea lions 

incidental to CALTRANS’ seismic 

retrofit of the Richmond-San Rafael 

Bridge, San Francisco Bay, CA, 

provided the above mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 54035 

requirements are incorporated without 

the submission of additional scientific 

information. 

Dated: September 6, 2005. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18089 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 083005A] 

Advisory Committee to the U.S. 

Section to the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); Fall Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: In preparation for the 2005 

ICCAT meeting, the Advisory 

Committee to the U.S. Section to 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

will hold two fall meetings. A summary 

of the meeting topics is provided in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this notice. 

DATES: The open sessions will be held 

on September 21, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. 

to 12:15 p.m. and October 17, 2005, 

from 8 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Closed 

sessions will be held on September 21, 

2005, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; 

September 22, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 12 

p.m.; October 17, 2005, from 11 a.m. to 

5 p.m.; and October 18, 2005, from 8:30 

a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Oral comments can 

be presented during the public comment 

session on October 17, 2005. Written 

comments on issues being considered at 

the meeting should be received no later 

than September 30, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at 

the Hilton Hotel, 8727 Colesville Road, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910. Written 

comments should be sent to Erika 

Carlsen at NOAA Fisheries Office of 

International Affairs, Room 13114, 1315 

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Erika Carlsen, (301) 713–2276. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section 

to ICCAT will meet twice in open 

sessions, on September 21 and October 

17, 2005, during its fall meetings. At the 

first session, the Advisory Committee 

will receive reports on ICCAT 

intersessional meetings, the domestic 

implementation of prior ICCAT 

decisions, and the implementation of 

Advisory Committee recommendations. 

At the second session, the Advisory 

Committee will receive information on 

the stock status of highly migratory 

species and management 

recommendations of ICCAT’s Standing 

Committee on Research and Statistics. 

The only opportunity for oral public 

comment will be during the October 17, 

2005 open session. Written comments 

are encouraged and, if mailed, should be 

received by September 30, 2005 (see 

ADDRESSES). Written comments can also 

be submitted during the open sessions 

of the Advisory Committee meeting. 

During its fall meetings, the Advisory 

Committee will also hold several 

executive sessions that are closed to the 

public. The first executive session will 

be held on September 21, 2005, after the 

adjournment of the first open session. A 

second executive session will be held 

on September 22, 2005. During its 

second fall meeting, the Advisory 

Committee will also hold an executive 

session on October 17, 2005, 

immediately following the adjournment 

of the second open session. The final 

closed session will be held October 18, 

2005. The purpose of these sessions is 

to discuss sensitive information relating 

to upcoming international negotiations. 

NMFS expects members of the public 

to conduct themselves appropriately for 

the duration of the meeting. At the 

beginning of the public comment 

session, an explanation of the ground 

rules will be provided (e.g., alcohol in 

the meeting room is prohibited, 

speakers will be called to give their 

comments in the order in which they 

registered to speak, each speaker will 

have an equal amount of time to speak, 

and speakers should not interrupt one 

another). The session will be structured 

so that all attending members of the 

public are able to comment, if they so 

choose, regardless of the degree of 

controversy of the subject(s). Those not 

respecting the ground rules will be 

asked to leave the meeting. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting locations are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Erika Carlsen at 

(301) 713-2276 at least five days prior to 

the meeting date. 

Dated: September 7, 2005. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18077 Filed 9–8–05; 12:35 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 9000–0139] 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Information Collection; Federal 

Acquisition and Community Right-ToKnow 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of request for an 

extension to an existing OMB clearance 

(9000–0139). 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Actof 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

Secretariat will be submitting to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) a request to review and approve 

an extension of a currently approved 

information collection requirement 

concerning the reporting requirements 

of the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 

(42 U.S.C. 11001–11050) and the 

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 

U.S.C. 13101–13109). The clearance 

currently expires on December 31, 2005. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

November 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding 

this burden estimate or any other aspect 

of the collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing this 

burden to the General Services 

Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), 

1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, 

Washington, DC 20405. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Ms. 

Kimberly Marshall, Contract Policy 

Division, GSA (202) 219–0986. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Purpose 

FAR Subpart 23.9 and its associate 

solicitation provision and contract 

clause implement the requirements of 

E.O. 12969 of August 8, 1995, published 

in the Federal Register at 60 FR 40989, 

August 10, 1995, ‘‘Federal Acquisition