Title: Forest Service Pilot and Aircraft Record Forms.

OMB Number: 0596-0015.

Expiration Date of Approval: February 28, 2022.

Type of Request: Renewal with revisions of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The Forest Service contracts with approximately 400 vendors a year for commercial aviation services utilized in resource protection and project management. In recent years, the total annual use of contract aircraft and pilots has exceeded 80,000 hours. In order to maintain an acceptable level of safety, preparedness, and cost-effectiveness in aviation operations, Forest Service contracts include rigorous qualifications for pilots and specific condition, equipment, and performance requirements for aircraft as aviation operations are conducted under extremely adverse conditions of weather, terrain, turbulence, smoke reduced visibility, minimally improved landing areas, and congested airspace around wildfires. To ensure pilots and aircraft used for aviation operations meet specific Forest Service qualifications and requirements for aviation operations, prospective contract pilots complete one of the following Forest Service forms:

Agency Aircraft Inspectors use the following forms when inspecting aircraft for contract compliance:

Based upon approval(s) documented on the form(s), each contractor pilot and aircraft receive an approval card. Forest Service personnel verify possession of properly approved cards before using contracted pilots and aircraft.

Information collected on pilot forms includes:

Without the collected information, Forest Service Pilot and Aircraft Inspectors and Forest Service Contracting Officers cannot determine whether contracted pilots and aircraft meet detailed qualification, equipment, and condition requirements essential to safe and effective accomplishment of Forest Service-specified flying missions. Without a reasonable basis to determine pilot qualifications and aircraft capability, Forest Service employees would be exposed to hazardous conditions. Data collected documents approval of contract pilots and aircraft for specific Forest Service aviation special missions. Information will be collected and reviewed by Pilot and Aircraft Inspectors to determine whether aircraft and/or pilot(s) meet all agency requirements in accordance with Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 5709.16, chapter 10, sections 15 and 16. Forest Service pilot and aircraft inspectors maintain collected information in Forest Service regional and national offices. The Forest Service, at times, shares the information with the Department of the Interior, Office of Aviation Services, as each organization accepts contract inspections conducted by the other.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 60 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Vendors/Contractors.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 2,100.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2,100 hours.

Comment Is Invited: Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and proper performance of Agency functions, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

Title: Timber Sale Contract Operations and Administration.

OMB Number: 0596-0225.

Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2021.

Type of Request: Extension with revisions of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Forest Service contracts for the sale of timber and other forest products are bilateral contracts in which both contracting parties are bound to fulfill obligations reciprocally. By their nature, bilateral contracts require both parties to routinely share information and enter into agreements pertaining to operations and performance. Some information collected under Forest Service contracts is required by laws, regulations, and/or timber sale policies. Each contract specifies information the contractor will be required to provide, including the timing and frequency of the information collection.

The type and amount of information collected varies depending on the size, complexity, and length of each contract, and external factors such as weather and market conditions. The information collected includes plans, requests, agreements, and notices necessary for operations under the terms of the contracts. Forest Service officers collect the information from contractors who may be individuals, private sector businesses, or other government entities. The information is submitted in a variety of formats including Forest Service forms, Government Standard and/or Common Forms, forms developed by individual contractors, charts, maps, email messages, facsimiles, and letters. Also, to assist small contractors and lessen their burden, individual Contracting Officers may provide optional forms for some of the information collected.

Depending on the purpose of the specific information collection, the information may be submitted by electronic mail, facsimile, conventional mail, or hand delivery. The information is needed by the Agency for a variety of uses associated with the operations and administration of contracts for the sale of timber and other forest products, in order to: (1) Plan and schedule contract administration workloads, (2) plan and schedule the delivery of government furnished materials needed by contractors, (3) assure the safety of the public in the vicinity of contract work, (4) identify contractor resources that may be used in emergency fire-fighting situations, (5) determine contractor eligibility for additional contract time, (6) determine contractor eligibility for re-determining contract rates, (7) monitor compliance with domestic processing requirements, (8) monitor compliance with Small Business Administration requirements, (9) process agreements and modifications, (10) inspect and accept work and (11) properly process payment bonds.

• FS-2400-0076 Pre-Award Waiver, Release, and Limitation of Liability Agreement: This form was developed for limited use when the apparent high bidder of a sale that is the subject of litigation requests to have the sale awarded prior to the litigation being resolved.

The following forms are available for optional use by timber sale purchasers and contractors: FS-2400-0077 General Plan of Operation. This form may be used to meet the requirements for a general Plan of Operations which outlines the Purchaser's planned periods of operation and methods for meeting contractual requirements by the contract termination date.

• FS-2400-0078 Annual Operating Schedule. This form may be used to meet the requirement to provide a written annual Operating Schedule outlining anticipated major activities before commencing operations.

• FS-2400-0079 Specified Road Schedule of Proposed Progress. May be used for sales that have specified road construction or reconstruction to fulfill the requirements to annually prepare a supplement to the Plan of Operations for road construction activities.

The following forms are for mandatory use when purchaser requests changes to the terms of the contract:

• FS-2400-0009 Agreement to Modify Timber Sale or Integrated Resource Timber Contract. This form is required to be used when a contract is modified under the terms of the contract.

• FS-2400-0010 Agreement Extend and Modify Timber Sale or Integrated Resource Timber Contract. This form is required to be used when a contract is extended or modified under the terms of the contract.

• FS-2400-0011 Waiver of Time Limit: Required for use when additional time is needed for a Purchaser to complete non-timber removal work after the contract terminates.

• FS-2400-0012 Third Party Agreement: Required for use when a Purchaser requests that another party take over operational responsibility for timber sale contract.

• FS-2400-0016 Cooperative Agreement: Required for use when a Purchaser requests Forest Service to assume the Purchaser's obligation to perform work under the contract.

The following forms are for mandatory use when purchaser requests the use of a Payment Bond or Blanket Payment Bond on the contract:

• FS-6500-12 Payment Bond (for Timber Sales and Integrated Resource Timber Contracts). This form is used to guarantee payment by way of an acceptable surety bond for an individual timber sale or Integrated Resource Timber contract.

• FS-6500-12a Blanket Payment Bond. This form is used to guarantee payment by way of an acceptable surety bond for more than one timber sale.

Type of Respondents: Timber sale purchasers and integrated resource timber contracts contractors.

Estimated Annual Number of Contracts: 3,400.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,370.

Estimated Annual Responses: 128,100.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 93.5.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 40,700 hours.

Estimate of Average Burden per Response: 0.32 hours.

Comment is Invited: Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

Title: Egg, Chicken, and Turkey Surveys.

OMB Number: 0535-0004.

Expiration Date of Approval: March 31, 2022.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to revise and extend an information collection for 3 years.

Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition. The Egg, Chicken, and Turkey Surveys obtain basic poultry statistics from voluntary cooperators throughout the Nation. Statistics are published on placement of pullet chicks for hatchery supply flocks; hatching reports for broiler-type, egg-type, and turkey eggs; number of layers on hand; total table egg production; and production and value estimates for eggs, chickens, and turkeys. The frequencies of the surveys being conducted include weekly, monthly, and annually. This information is used by producers, processors, feed dealers, and others in marketing and supply channels as a basis for production and marketing decisions. Government agencies use these estimates to evaluate poultry product supplies. The information is an important consideration in government purchases for the National School Lunch Program and in formulation of export-import policy. The current expiration date for this docket is March 31, 2022. NASS intends to request that the surveys be approved for another 3 years.

Authority: These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ), and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),” Federal Register , Vol. 72, No. 115, June 15, 2007, p. 33362.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated between 8 and 35 minutes per respondent per survey. Additional burden is allowed for the inclusion of publicity materials and instructions on how to respond to the surveys via the internet.

Respondents: Farmers, ranchers, farm managers, and farm contractors.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,800.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 4,100 hours. This will include burden for both the initial mailing and phone follow-up to non-respondents, as well as publicity and instruction materials mailed out with questionnaires.

Comments: 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological, or other forms of information technology collection methods. All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

In the Federal Register of July 2, 2021, in FR Doc 2021-14142, on page 35266, in the third column, correct the Final Results as follows:  1

We determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates for the period of November 28, 2017, through December 31, 2018:

On July 2, 2021, Commerce published in the Federal Register the final results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on ripe olives from Spain covering the period November 28, 2017 through December 31, 2018. 4 We failed to include Camacho's cross-owned affiliates in the notice. We are correcting the Final Results to clarify that the countervailable subsidy rate for Camacho also applies to its cross-owned affiliates: Grupo Angel Camacho Alimentacíon, Cuarterola S.L., and Cucanoche S.L.

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

On February 24, 2016, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 was signed into law, which contains Title IV-Prevention of Evasion of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, commonly referred to as the Enforce and Protect Act of 2015 or EAPA. 1 Effective August 22, 2016, section 421 of EAPA added section 517 to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), which establishes a formal process for CBP to investigate allegations of the evasion of AD and CVD orders. Section 517(b)(4)(A) of the Act provides a procedure whereby if, during the course of an EAPA investigation, CBP is unable to determine whether the merchandise at issue is covered merchandise within the meaning of section 517(a)(3) of the Act, then it shall refer the matter to Commerce to make such a determination. Section 517(a)(3) of the Act defines covered merchandise as merchandise that is subject to an AD order issued under section 736 of the Act or a CVD order issued under section 706 of the Act. Section 517(b)(4)(B) of the Act states that Commerce, after receiving a covered merchandise referral from CBP, shall determine whether the merchandise is covered merchandise and promptly transmit its determination to CBP. The Act does not establish a deadline by which Commerce must issue its determination.

On June 9, 2021, Commerce received a covered merchandise referral from CBP regarding CBP EAPA Investigation No. 7509, 2 which concerns the AD and CVD orders on certain steel wheels from China. 3 CBP explained that Accuride Corporation (Accuride) and Maxion Wheels Akron LLC (Maxion) alleged that Vanguard National Trailer Corporation (Vanguard) imported steel wheels produced by Chinese manufacturer Zhejiang Jingu Company Limited (Jingu) that were transshipped through Jingu's affiliate in Thailand, Asia Wheel Co. Ltd. (Asia Wheel), and entered into the United States as a product of Thailand to evade the Orders. CBP's Office of Trade initiated an EAPA investigation based on the evidence in the allegation submitted by Accuride and Maxion that reasonably suggested that Vanguard entered steel wheels into the customs territory of the United States by means of evasion. 4

CBP further informed Commerce on August 18, 2020, that the Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate of CBP's Office of Trade initiated an EAPA investigation based on the reasonableness of the evidence in Accuride and Maxion's allegation that Vanguard imported merchandise covered by the Orders into the customs territory of the United States by means of evasion. 5 In response, Vanguard and Asia Wheel stated that the steel wheels at issue were not subject to the Orders, because they were produced in Thailand using rims that did not originate in China. 6 Accordingly, CBP has requested that Commerce issue a determination as to whether steel wheels produced in Thailand by Asia Wheel from Thai-origin steel wheel rims and Chinese-origin steel wheel discs, are covered merchandise.

We note that this merchandise is already the subject of a scope ruling request previously submitted to Commerce by Asia Wheel, 7 and is currently under consideration in ongoing scope inquiries of the Orders. 8

Commerce is hereby notifying interested parties that it has received the covered merchandise referral referenced above. As the covered merchandise referral requests a determination on merchandise identified in a request for a scope ruling previously submitted to Commerce and currently under consideration, we will address the covered merchandise referral and Asia Wheel's scope ruling request in the ongoing scope inquires of the Orders. Based on our determinations in the ongoing scope inquiries of the Orders, we intend to notify CBP as to whether the merchandise subject to the referral is covered merchandise within the meaning of section 517(a)(3) of the Act.

Commerce intends to provide interested parties with the opportunity to participate in this EAPA referral as part of the ongoing scope inquiries, including through the submission of comments, and, if appropriate, new factual information and verification. Specifically, Commerce will notify parties on the segment-specific service list for these segments of the proceedings of a schedule for comments. In addition, Commerce may request factual information from any person to assist in making its determination and may verify submissions of factual information, if Commerce determines that such verification is appropriate. C

Parties are also hereby notified that this is the only notice that Commerce intends to publish in the Federal Register concerning this covered merchandise referral. Interested parties that wish to participate in these scope inquiries, and receive notice of the final determinations, must submit their letters of appearance as discussed below. Further, any party desiring access to business proprietary information in these scope inquiries must file an application for access to business proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO), as discussed below.

Further, Commerce may consider conducting a separate anti-circumvention inquiry regarding the merchandise described in CBP's covered merchandise referral, if parties submit the necessary information addressing the criteria for an anti-circumvention inquiry, in accordance with section 781 of the Act. Interested parties are requested to file such comments and information onto the record of the ongoing scope inquiries within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

Finally, we note that covered merchandise referrals constitute a new type of segment of a proceeding at Commerce and, therefore, Commerce intends to develop its practice and procedures in this area as it gains more experience.

The products covered by the Orders are certain on-the-road steel wheels, discs, and rims for tubeless tires, with a nominal rim diameter of 22.5 inches and 24.5 inches, regardless of width. Certain on-the-road steel wheels with a nominal wheel diameter of 22.5 inches and 24.5 inches are generally for Class 6, 7, and 8 commercial vehicles (as classified by the Federal Highway Administration Gross Vehicle Weight Rating system), including tractors, semi-trailers, dump trucks, garbage trucks, concrete mixers, and buses, and are the current standard wheel diameters for such applications. The standard widths of certain on-the-road steel wheels are 7.5 inches, 8.25 inches, and 9.0 inches, but all certain on-the-road steel wheels, regardless of width, are covered by the scope. While 22.5 inches and 24.5 inches are standard wheel sizes used by Class 6, 7, and 8 commercial vehicles, the scope covers sizes that may be adopted in the future for Class 6, 7, and 8 commercial vehicles.

The scope includes certain on-the-road steel wheels with either a “hub-piloted” or “stud-piloted” mounting configuration, and includes rims and discs for such wheels, whether imported as an assembly or separately. The scope includes certain on-the-road steel wheels, discs, and rims, of carbon and/or alloy steel composition, whether cladded or not cladded, whether finished or not finished, and whether coated or uncoated. All on-the-road wheels sold in the United States are subject to the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and bear markings, such as the “DOT” symbol, indicating compliance with applicable motor vehicle standards. See 49 CFR571.120. The scope includes certain on-the-road steel wheels imported with or without the required markings. Certain on-the-road steel wheels imported as an assembly with a tire mounted on the wheel and/or with a valve stem attached are included. However, if the certain on-the-road steel wheel is imported as an assembly with a tire mounted on the wheel and/or with a valve stem attached, the certain on-the-road steel wheel is covered by the scope, but the tire and/or valve stem is not covered by the scope.

The scope includes rims and discs that have been further processed in a third country, including, but not limited to, the welding and painting of rims and discs from China to form a steel wheel, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the proceeding if performed in China.

Excluded from the scope are:

Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 8708.70.4530, 8708.70.4560, 8708.70.6030, 8708.70.6060, 8716.90.5045, and 8716.90.5059. Merchandise meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.20.1015, 4011.20.5020, and 8708.99.4850. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS. 9 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information. 10 Each submission must be placed on the record of each of the scope inquiries, i.e., for the AD order (A-570-082) and the CVD order (C-570-083).

Interested parties that wish to participate in these scope inquiries and be added to the public service list must file a letter of appearance in accordance with 19 CFR 351.103(d)(1), with one exception: The parties to EAPA investigation 7509 publicly identified by CBP in the covered merchandise referral referenced above (Accuride, Maxion, and Vanguard)  11 are not required to submit a letter of appearance, and will be added to the public service list for these scope inquires by Commerce.

Commerce placed an APO on the existing records of the scope inquiries on May 12, 2021, 12 and established the APO service lists for use in these segments. Commerce intends to place the covered merchandise referral letter on the records of these scope inquiries in ACCESS within five days of publication of this notice.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under the APO in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to these segments of the AD and CVD proceedings, with one exception: APO applicants representing the parties that have been identified by CBP as an importer in the covered merchandise referral (referenced above) are exempt from the additional filing requirements for importers pursuant to 19 CFR 351.305(d).

On March 25, 2021, Commerce published the preliminary results of the 25th administrative review of fresh garlic from China. 1 We preliminarily found that the mandatory respondent Goodman was part of the China-wide entity. We rescinded the review with respect to five companies for which their sole requests for review had been timely withdrawn. 2 Furthermore, we preliminarily determined that the review request submitted by Roots Farm was invalid and preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to Harmoni. Additionally, we found that two companies, Shandong Happy Foods Co., Ltd. and Jining Alpha Food Co., Ltd., qualified for separate rate status.

On April 26, 2021, the Fresh Garlic Producers Association (FGPA) and its individual members  3 submitted comments on the Preliminary Results. 4 No other party submitted comments. The deadline for the final results is July 23, 2021.

The products subject to the order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of the order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings: 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0005, 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, and 2005.99.9700, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to that effect.

Commerce has determined that the review request from Roots Farm was invalid ab initio, and is rescinding the administrative review with respect to mandatory respondent, Harmoni.

The FGPA was the only party to file comments on the Preliminary Results. The FGPA noted that the preliminary rate applied to Shandong Happy Foods Co., Ltd and Jining Alpha Food Co., Ltd should be $4.37 per kilogram (kg) rather than the rate of $4.34 per kg stated in the Preliminary Results. Commerce stated in the Preliminary Results that the margin assigned to the separate rate recipients would be the “rate for the separate rate companies in the previous administrative review of this order.”  5 The separate rate in the previous administrative review was $4.37 per kg. 6 Therefore, we have made the change proposed by FGPA for these final results. See Final Results of Administrative Review section.

In the Preliminary Results, in accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce employed a limited examination methodology, as we determined that it would not be practicable to examine individually all companies for which a review request was made. 7 There were two exporters of subject merchandise from China that have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate but were not selected for individual examination in this review. These two exporters are listed in the Final Results of Administrative Review section of this notice.

Neither the Act nor Commerce's regulations address the establishment of the rate applied to individual companies not selected for examination where Commerce limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Commerce's practice in cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volume of imports has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs Commerce to use rates established for individually investigated producers and exporters, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available in investigations.

In this administrative review, Goodman, the only individually reviewed respondent, did not receive a weighted-average dumping margin. Therefore, for these final results, Commerce has determined to assign the separate-rate from the prior review, 8 which was Goodman's calculated rate, to the non-selected separate-rate companies.

Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the administrative review covering the period November 1, 2018, through October 31, 2019:

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to direct CBP to assess rates based on the per-unit ( i.e., per kg) amount on each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. Commerce also intends to issue assessment instructions no earlier than 35 days after the publication date of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

Pursuant to Commerce's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, for merchandise entered under Goodman's case number ( i.e., at its individually-examined exporter's cash deposit rate), Commerce intends to instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate. 10

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register , as provided by sections 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in these final results of review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the China-wide rate of 4.71 U.S. dollars per kg; and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period of review. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On November 9, 2020, Commerce initiated an LTFV investigation of imports of wind towers from India. 1 The period of investigation is July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020. On May 24, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination. 2

Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2) provide that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the exporters or producers who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Further, 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that such postponement requests by exporters be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act.

On July 7, 2021, Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited (Vestas India), the mandatory respondent in this investigation, requested that Commerce postpone the deadline for the final determination until no later than 135 days from the publication of the Preliminary Determination, and extend the application of the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months. 3 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The Preliminary Determination was affirmative; (2) the request was made by an exporter/producer who accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination, and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will issue its final determination no later than October 6, 2021. 4

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g).

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental take authorization may be 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) and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.

The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

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

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.

On February 3, 2021, NMFS received a request from the United States Navy (Navy) for an IHA to take marine mammals' incidental to pile removal activities at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego Bay, California. We submitted questions to the Navy on the application on March 12, 2021. We received responses on March 23, 2021; April 5, 2021; May 5, 2021; and May 12, 2021. Meetings between NMFS, the Navy, and their contractors were held on May 12, 2021 and May 24, 2021. A final revised version was received by NMFS on May 24, 2021. The application was deemed adequate and complete on May 17, 2021. The Navy's request is for the take of a small number of six species of marine mammals by Level B harassment only. Neither the Navy nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from these activities. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

Naval Base Point Loma provides berthing and support services for Navy submarines and other fleet assets. The existing fuel pier previously served as a fuel depot for loading and unloading fuel. Naval Base Point Loma is the only active Navy fueling facility in southern California. The current project is to remove piles that were part of the old pier that was replaced over the past few years. This proposed IHA includes up to 84 days of in-water pile removal activities.

NMFS has previously issued incidental take authorizations to the Navy for similar activities over the past 8 years at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego Bay, including IHAs issued effective from September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014 (78 FR 44539, July 24, 2013; Year 1 Project), October 8, 2014 through October 7, 2015 (79 FR 65378, November 4, 2014; Year 2 Project), October 8, 2015 through October 7, 2016 (80 FR 62032, October 15, 2015; Year 3 Project), October 8, 2016 through October 7, 2017 (81 FR 66628, September 28, 2016; Year 4 Project), October 8, 2017 through October 7, 2018 (82 FR 45811, October 2, 2017; Year 5 Project), September 15, 2020 through September 14, 2021 (85 FR 33129, June 1, 2020; Floating Dry Dock Project), and October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 (86 FR 7993, February 3, 2021; Pier 6 Replacement Project). The Navy has complied with all the requirements ( e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of past IHAs. Monitoring reports from these activities are available on NMFS website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities ).

The purpose of the proposed project is to remove old piles from the Fuel Pier at Naval Base Point Loma to allow for continued Naval Fleet readiness activities. Specifically, in-water construction work includes the removal of 409 piles by a variety of techniques ( i.e., one to two pile clippers, an underwater chainsaw, a diamond wire saw, or a vibratory hammer, possibly with assistance from a diver). Concurrent pile removal may occur for some piles through the use of two pile clippers only. The piles include an estimated 12 13-inch diameter polycarbonate fender piles, 56 14-inch diameter concrete fender piles, and 341 16-inch diameter concrete structural piles.

Dredging activities would occur both during and after pile removal and within the one-year period of the IHA. However, take of marine mammals is not expected to result from the NBPL dredging activities, the Navy did not request take incidental to dredging activities, and they are not discussed further.

The pile removal activities can result in the take of marine mammals from the sounds produced in the water, which could result in behavioral harassment or auditory injury to marine mammals within the estimated isopleths.

The work described in this proposed IHA is scheduled to begin January 15, 2022 and be valid for one year after the start date (end January 14, 2023). Under the terms of a previously developed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Navy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Navy would only be performing in-water activities during a 196-day period from September 16 to March 31 to not interfere with the California least tern ( Sterna antillarum browni ) nesting season.

Pile removal is planned to occur during daylight hours only over 84 days within the previously described 196 day period. Per the Navy's application, daylight hours constitute no earlier than 45 minutes after sunrise or later than 45 minutes before sunset.

The activities would occur near the mouth of the San Diego Bay (Figure 1). San Diego Bay is a narrow, crescent-shaped natural embayment oriented northwest-southeast with an approximate length of 24 kilometers (km) (15 miles (mi)) and a total area of roughly 4 km 2 (11,000 acres; Port of San Diego, 2007). The width of the Bay ranges from 0.3 to 5.8 km (0.2 to 3.6 mi), and depths range from 23 m (74 ft) MLLW near the tip of Ballast Point to less than 1.2 m (4 ft) at the southern end (Merkel and Associates, Inc., 2009). Approximately half of the Bay is less than 4.5 meters (m) (15 feet (ft)) deep and much of it is less than 15 m (50 ft) deep (Merkel and Associates, Inc., 2009). The northern and central portions of the Bay have been shaped by historical dredging and filling to support large ship navigation and shoreline development. The United States Army Corps of Engineers dredges the main navigation channel in the Bay to maintain a depth of 14 m (47 ft) MLLW and is responsible for providing safe transit for private, commercial, and military vessels within the bay (NOAA, 2010). Outside of the navigation channel, the bay floor consists of platforms at depths that vary slightly (Merkel and Associates, Inc., 2009). Within the Central Bay, typical depths range from 10.7-11.6 m (35-38 ft) MLLW to support large ship turning and anchorage, and small vessel marinas are typically dredged to depths of 4.6 m (15 ft) MLLW (Merkel and Associates, Inc., 2009).

Benthic substrate in San Diego Bay is largely sand (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest and Port of San Diego Bay, 2013) as tidal currents tend to keep the finer silt and clay fractions in suspension, except in harbors and elsewhere in the lee of structures where water movement is diminished. Much of the shoreline consists of riprap and manmade structures. The project site is shallow subtidal and has an eelgrass bed located less than 1-acre in size (Merkel and Associates, Inc., 2018). Over-water structures, such as the existing Marine Group Boat Works, LLC (MGBW; see 85 FR 33129, June 1, 2020) piles and dock structures, provide substrates for the growth of algae and invertebrates off the bottom and support abundant fish populations. Eelgrass present within the project site is important habitat for invertebrates, fishes, and birds (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest and Port of San Diego Bay, 2013).

San Diego Bay is heavily used by commercial, recreational, and military vessels, with an average of 82,413 vessel movements (in or out of the Bay) per year (approximately 225 vessel transits per day), a majority of which are presumed to occur during daylight hours. This number of transits does not include recreational boaters that use San Diego Bay, estimated to number 200,000 annually (San Diego Harbor Safety Committee, 2009).

Underwater data collect by the Navy have determined an averaged median ambient noise level to be approximately 129.6 decibel pressure of 1 microPascal (dB re 1 μPa) for north San Diego Bay (NAVFAC SW, 2020). Their findings demonstrated ambient sound levels to be higher than the 120 dB re 1 μPa sound threshold for Level B harassment from non-impulsive sources. This is based on sound levels collected during the five past IHA applications submitted to NMFS (Navy 2013b, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017a) that determined sound levels ranged between 126 and 137 dB re 1 μPa (L 50 ; Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, 2018).

Section 2.2 of the application provides extensive additional details about the project area.

The purpose of this project is to deconstruct the old Fuel Pier to allow for the full use of the newly developed Fuel Pier. The Navy would remove 409 old piles using single or concurrent pile clippers, a diamond wire saw, an underwater chainsaw, and/or a vibratory hammer. While each removal method is assessed independently, multiple tools may be needed to remove each pile. However, with the exception for the possible concurrent use of two pile clippers, removals would be conducted independently as to minimize disturbance zones.

The hydraulic pile clippers (24-inch) would be placed over each pile and lowered to the mudline where they use a horizontal motion to cut the pile. While pile clippers may be used on any of the pile types (13-inch polycarbonate, 14-inch concrete, 16-inch concrete), any concurrent use of pile clippers (2 pile clippers) would only occur for the 14-inch and 16-inch concrete piles. Underwater divers may be needed for pile clipper use.

The use of a single diamond wire saw, underwater chainsaw, or vibratory hammer may be used for the 14-inch and 16-inch concrete piles. The diamond wire saw rig and vibratory hammer would be placed around the pile. The saw would cut through the pile using a worker-operated level bar. The vibratory hammer would loosen the pile from the surrounding sediment, allowing it to be pulled out vertically from the ground. Lastly, a diver-operated underwater chainsaw would be used to cut through the piles. Once the piles are clipped or cut, an on-site crane would be used to vertically remove piles. Removed piles would be placed on a barge for transport to a processing yard.

The Navy's contractor will choose the most appropriate method for each pile, as discussed in the submitted project application. Pile clippers (24-inch) would be used first, either by single use for one pile or concurrent use on two piles. If the pile clippers cannot be used successfully, the underwater chainsaw would be employed to cut concrete piles. If both of these methods are both unsuccessful, the diamond wire saw would be utilized. Lastly, the vibratory hammer would be implemented to loosen any relatively intact piles to allow for vertical removal by crane. However, the Navy has noted in their application that the contractor performing the work will choose the appropriate method of pile removal.

All proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (see Proposed Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Measures).

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

There are six marine mammal species that are potentially expected to be present during all or a portion of the in-water work associated with this project in San Diego Bay, including the California sea lion ( Zalophus californianus ), the Northern elephant seal ( Mirounga angustirostris ), the harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina ), the bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), the Pacific white-sided dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ), and the common dolphin ( Delphinus delphis ). The Committee on Taxonomy recently determined both the long-beaked and short-beaked common dolphin belong in the same species and we adopt this taxonomy, but the SARs still describe the two as separate stocks and that stock information is presented in Table 1. California sea lions are typically present year-round and are very common in the project area, but may have variable sightings based off Navy marine mammal surveys of northern San Diego Bay. Bottlenose dolphins and harbor seals are also common and likely to be present year-round, but with more variable occurrence in San Diego Bay in comparison to California sea lions. Common dolphins are known to occur in nearshore waters outside San Diego Bay, but are only rarely observed near or in the Bay. The remaining species are known to occur in nearshore waters outside San Diego Bay, but are generally only rarely observed near or in the bay. However, recent observations indicate that these species may occur in the project area and therefore could potentially be subject to incidental harassment from the aforementioned activities.

Table 1 lists all marine mammal species with expected potential for occurrence in the vicinity of Naval Base Point Loma during the project timeframe and summarizes key information, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats. For taxonomy, we followed the Society for Marine Mammalogy's Committee on Taxonomy (2020).

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates, for most species, represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's 2019 Pacific SARs (Carretta et al., 2020a) and draft 2020 U.S. Pacific SARs (Carretta et al., 2020b). All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2019 Pacific SARs and draft 2020 Pacific SARs (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports ).

As indicated above, all six species (with seven managed stocks) in Table 1 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing it. While Risso's dolphins and gray whales have been sighted around California coastal waters in the past, these species' general spatial occurrence is such that take is not expected to occur as they typically occur more offshore, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here.

Specifically, gray whales may be observed in San Diego Bay sporadically during their January southbound migratory periods (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest and Port of San Diego Bay, 2013), and have previously been included in take authorizations for past projects and IHAs relating to Naval Base Point Loma (refer back to the Year 1-5 IHAs cited above). However, in the most recent Monitoring Report from October 8, 2017 to January 25, 2018 (Year 5 IHA; NAVFAC SW, 2018) at Naval Base Point Loma, no sightings occurred for gray whales. Only two gray whales were spotted in the October 8, 2016 to April 30, 2017 (Year 4 IHA; NAVFAC SW, 2017) Monitoring Report by the Navy.

Risso's dolphins have not been seen in San Diego Bay but are known to be common in southern California coastal waters (Campbell et al., 2010). While take of Risso's dolphins have been authorized in three of the past IHAs for Naval Base Point Loma (see Year 3 IHA at 80 FR 62032, October 15, 2015; Year 4 IHA at 81 FR 66628, September 28, 2016; and Year 5 IHA at 82 FR 45811, October 2, 2017 for examples), no Risso's dolphins were sighted during any of those projects.

Furthermore, due to the relatively shallow depth near the project site the more sheltered and inland location of this project site within San Diego Bay, and the inclusion of the buffered shutdown zone within the Navy's monitoring and mitigation plan, NMFS expects that a very low probability of take exists for these two species. Because of these reasons, no take has been requested nor proposed to be authorized for gray whales or Risso's dolphins during this proposed IHA.

Furthermore, other species that occur in the Southern California Bight may have the potential for isolated occurrence within San Diego Bay or just offshore. In particular, a short-finned pilot whale ( Globicephala macrorhynchus ) was observed off Ballast Point, and a Steller sea lion ( Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis ) was seen in the project area during the Year 2 project at Naval Base Point Loma (79 FR 65378, November 4, 2014). However, these species are not typically observed near the project area and, we do not believe it likely that they will occur during this proposed action. Given the unlikelihood of their exposure to the sounds generated from the project, these species are not considered further.

As seen in the Navy's marine mammal surveys of San Diego Bay, cited above, coastal bottlenose dolphins have occurred within San Diego Bay sporadically and in variable numbers and locations. The California coastal stock of bottlenose dolphin is distinct from the offshore population and is resident in the immediate (within 1 km of shore) coastal waters, occurring primarily between Point Conception, California, and San Quintin, Mexico. Occasionally, during warm-water incursions such as during the 1982-1983 El Niño events, their range extends as far north as San Francisco Bay (Carretta et al., 2017). They are commonly found in groups of 2 to 15 individuals and in larger groups offshore.

Coastal bottlenose dolphins have occurred sporadically and in highly variable numbers and locations in San Diego Bay. Navy surveys showed that bottlenose dolphins were most commonly sighted in April, and there were more dolphins observed during El Niño years.

California coastal bottlenose dolphins show little site fidelity and likely move within their home range in response to patchy concentrations of nearshore prey (Defran et al., 1999; Bearzi et al., 2009). After finding concentrations of prey, animals may then forage within a more limited spatial extent to take advantage of this local accumulation until such time that prey abundance is reduced, likely then shifting location once again and possibly covering larger distances. Navy surveys frequently result in no observations of bottlenose dolphins, and sightings have ranged from 0-8 groups observed (0-40 individuals).

Pacific white-sided dolphins are endemic to temperate waters of the North Pacific Ocean, and are common both on the high seas and along the continental margins (Carretta et al., 2014). Off the U.S. west coast, Pacific white-sided dolphins occur primarily in shelf and slope waters. Sighting patterns from aerial and shipboard surveys conducted in California, Oregon and Washington suggest seasonal north-south movements, with animals found primarily off California during the colder water months and shifting northward into Oregon and Washington as water temperatures increase in late spring and summer (Carretta et al., 2014).

Pacific white-sided dolphins are uncommon in San Diego Bay, but observations of this species increased during El Niño years. Monitoring during the Year 2 IHA documented seven sightings of Pacific white-sided dolphins, comprising 27 individuals, with a mean group size of 3.85 individuals per sighting and an average of 0.28 individuals sighted per day of monitoring.

Short-beaked common dolphins are the most abundant cetacean off California and are widely distributed between the coast and at least 300 nautical miles (nmi; 555.6 km) offshore. In contrast, long-beaked common dolphins generally occur within 50 nmi of shore. Both stocks of common dolphin appear to shift their distributions seasonally and annually in response to oceanographic conditions and prey availability (Carretta et al., 2016). Long-beaked common dolphins appear to prefer shallower, warmer waters as compared to the short-beaked common dolphin (Perrin 2009). Both tend to be more abundant in coastal waters during warm-water months (Bearzi, 2005).

The occurrence of common dolphins inside San Diego Bay is uncommon (NAVFAC SW and POSD, 2013). However, common dolphins were observed within the bay on three occasions (twelve, five, and two individuals) on two separate days during monitoring conducted during the Indicator Pile Program in Fall 2014 (78 FR 44539, July 24, 2013). Within San Diego Bay, these two stocks' share overlapping distributions, although they are likely long-beaked (as described by the stranding of this species from San Diego Bay to the U.S.-Mexico border (Danil and St. Leger, 2011)). Furthermore, it is unlikely that observers would be able to differentiate the specific species in the field.

The California sea lion is by far the most commonly-sighted pinniped species in the vicinity of Naval Base Point Loma and northern San Diego Bay. California sea lions regularly occur on rocks, buoys and other structures, and especially on bait barges, although numbers vary greatly.

Different age classes of California sea lions are found in the San Diego region throughout the year (Lowry et al., 1992), although Navy surveys show that the local population comprises adult females and sub-adult males and females, with adult males being uncommon. The Navy has conducted marine mammal surveys throughout the north San Diego Bay project area (Merkel and Associates, 2008; Johnson, 2010, 2011; Lerma, 2012, 2014). Sightings include all animals observed and their locations. The majority of observations are of animals hauled out.

There are a few man-made areas near the proposed project site where California sea lions are known to haul out. The Navy has noted that the most proximal location is two sets of Navy-owned docks that are 140 m (459 ft) to the southwest and 180 m (591 ft) to the north. However, these docks are used constantly for other Navy activities and California sea lions are not expected to remain present for long periods of time. The Everingham Brother Bait Barges, located approximately 400 to 500 m (1,312 to 1,640 ft) southeast of the proposed project area, also serves as a known haul out site. No natural haul outs are known near the project site.

Per NMFS's 2019 Pacific SAR, it is estimated that the carrying capacity for California sea lions is around 275,298 animals in 2014 (Laake et al., 2018; Carretta et al., 2020a). As indicated by the current draft 2020 Pacific SAR, this estimate has not changed (Carretta et al., 2020b).

Harbor seals are considered abundant throughout most of their range from Baja California to the eastern Aleutian Islands. Peak numbers of harbor seals haul-out on land during late May to early June, which coincides with the peak of their molt. Harbor seals do not make extensive pelagic migrations, but do travel hundreds of km on occasion to find food or suitable breeding areas (Carretta et al., 2016). Based on likely foraging strategies, Grigg et al., (2009) reported seasonal shifts in harbor seal movements based on prey availability. In relationship to the entire California stock, harbor seals do not have a significant mainland California distribution south of Point Mugu.

Harbor seals are relatively uncommon within San Diego Bay. Sightings in the Navy transect surveys of northern San Diego Bay through March 2012 were limited to the south side of Ballast Point (TDI, 2012; Jenkins, 2012). However, Navy marine mammal monitoring for another project conducted intermittently at Pier 122 (located approximately 6,150 m (20,177.17 ft) northeast from the location of this proposed project) from 2010-2014 documented from zero to 4 harbor seals within the proposed project area at various times, with the greatest number of sightings during April and May (Jenkins, 2012; Bowman, 2014). Subsequently, monitoring conducted by the Navy during Year 1 of the fuel pier project documented increased numbers of harbor seals in the project area (Lerma, 2014). Approximately three- quarters of these observations were of animals hauled out along the Naval Base Point Loma shoreline. An individual harbor seal was also frequently sighted near Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command (NMAWC), located approximately 3,700 m (12,139.11 ft) north of the project site, during 2014 (McConchie, 2014).

The population is estimated to have grown at 3.8 percent annually since 1988 (Lowry et al., 2014). Northern elephant seals breed and give birth in California (U.S.) and Baja California (Mexico), primarily on offshore islands. Populations of northern elephant seals in the U.S. and Mexico have recovered after being reduced to near extinction by hunting, undergoing a severe population bottleneck and loss of genetic diversity with the population reduced to only an estimated 10-30 individuals.

Northern elephant seals occur in the southern California bight, and have the potential to occur in San Diego Bay (NAVFAC SW and POSD 2013), but the only recent documentation of occurrence was of a single distressed juvenile observed on the beach south and inshore of the Fuel Pier during the second year IHA. Given the continuing, long-term increase in the population of northern elephant seals (Lowry et al., 2014), there is an increasing possibility of occurrence in the project area.

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al., (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes ( i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al., (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 2.

The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemilä et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).

For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. Six marine mammal species (three cetaceans and three pinnipeds (one otariid (California sea lion) and two phocid (harbor seal and Northern elephant seal) species have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed construction activities (Table 1). Of the cetacean species that may be present at Naval Base Point Loma during this proposed project, none are classified as low-frequency cetaceans, three are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (Pacific white-sided dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, and common dolphins), and none are classified as high-frequency cetaceans.

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

Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity can occur from vibratory pile removal, the use of underwater chainsaws, pile clippers (individual and concurrently), and diamond wire saws. The effects of underwater noise from the Navy's proposed activities have the potential to result in Level A or Level B harassment of marine mammals in the action area. However, Level A harassment is not expected nor would be authorized for this project.

The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many sources both near and far (ANSI, 1995). The sound level of an area is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical ( e.g., waves, wind, precipitation, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological ( e.g., sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound ( e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).

The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.

In-water construction activities associated with this project would include vibratory pile removal as well as diamond wire saw, underwater chainsaws, and single-use or concurrent-use of pile clippers. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: Impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds ( e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) are typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and consist of high peak sound pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005; NMFS, 2018). Non-impulsive sounds ( e.g., machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, chainsaws, pile clippers, and active sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically do not have the high peak sound pressure with raid rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 2018). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing ( e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007).

Vibratory hammers would be used in this project. Vibratory hammers install or remove piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak Sound pressure Levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).

Pile clippers, diamond wire saws, and underwater chainsaws are hydraulically operated equipment. A pile clipper is a large, heavy elongated horizontal guillotine-like structure that is mechanically lowered over a pile down to the mudline or substrate where hydraulic force is used to push a sharp blade to cut a pile. The underwater chainsaws are operated by SCUBA divers. The diamond wire saw may need to be operated by a SCUBA diver as well. Sounds generated by this demolition equipment are non-impulsive and continuous (NAVAC SW, 2020).

The likely or possible impacts of the Navy's proposed activity on marine mammals could result from exposure to both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could include physical presence of the equipment and personnel; however, impacts to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature. Acoustic stressors include noise generated from heavy equipment operation during pile removal.

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile removal and the various demolition equipment is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the Navy's specified activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al., 2007). Generally, exposure to pile removal and other construction noise has the potential to result in auditory threshold shifts and behavioral reactions ( e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-observable physiological responses such an increase in stress hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out daily functions such as communication and predator and prey detection. The effects of pile removal and demolition noise on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type ( e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class ( e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical auditory effects (threshold shifts) followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.

NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the likelihood or consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern ( e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the frequency range of the exposure ( i.e., spectral content), the hearing and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the signal's frequency spectrum ( i.e., how animal uses sound within the frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap between the animal and the source ( e.g., spatial, temporal, and spectral).

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, and with the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS in marine mammals, largely due to the fact that, for various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels inducing PTS are not typically pursued (NMFS, 2018).

A temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (see Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran (2016), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with cumulative sound exposure level (SEL cum ) in an accelerating fashion: At low exposures with lower SEL cum , the amount of TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher SEL cum , the growth curves become steeper and approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.

Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration ( i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.

Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ), and Yangtze finless porpoise ( Neophocoena asiaeorientalis )) and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited number of sound sources ( i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained spotted ( Phoca largha ) and ringed ( Pusa hispida ) seals exposed to impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). The potential for TTS from impact pile driving exists. After exposure to playbacks of impact pile driving sounds (rate 2,760 strikes/hour) in captivity, mean TTS increased from 0 dB after 15 minute exposure to 5 dB after 360 minute exposure; recovery occurred within 60 minutes (Kastelein et al., 2016). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data are available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in NMFS (2018).

During pile removal activities there would likely be pauses in the activities producing sound during each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are likely moving through the action area and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.

Exposure to noise from pile removal also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant ( e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005).

Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source ( e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial sound than most cetaceans.

Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators ( e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to differences in response in any given circumstance ( e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 2007). Estimates of the energetic requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history stage of the animal, when available, may be used to better inform assessment of whether foraging disruptions are likely to have fitness consequences.

In 2016, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) documented observations of marine mammals during construction activities ( i.e., pile driving) at the Kodiak Ferry Dock (ABR, 2016; see 80 FR 60636, October 7, 2015). In the marine mammal monitoring report for that project (ABR, 2016), 1,281 Steller sea lions were observed within the Level B harassment disturbance zone during pile driving or drilling ( i.e., documented as Level B harassment take). Of these, 19 individuals demonstrated an alert behavior, 7 were fleeing, and 19 swam away from the project site. All other animals (98 percent) were engaged in activities such as milling, foraging, or fighting and did not change their behavior. In addition, two sea lions approached within 20 m of active vibratory pile driving activities. Three harbor seals were observed within the disturbance zone during pile driving activities; none of them displayed disturbance behaviors. Fifteen killer whales ( Orcinus orca ) and three harbor porpoise were also observed within the Level B harassment zone during pile driving. The killer whales were travelling or milling while all harbor porpoises were travelling. No signs of disturbance were noted for either of these species. Given the similarities in activities and habitat, we expect similar behavioral responses of marine mammals to the Navy's specified activity. That is, disturbance, if any, is likely to be temporary and localized ( e.g., small area movements).

An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses ( e.g., Seyle, 1950; Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an animal's fitness.

Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance ( e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated with stress (Romano et al., 2004).

The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress would last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.

Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals ( e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations ( e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales ( Eubalaena glacialis ). These and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine mammals would experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be classified as “distress.” In addition, any animal experiencing TTS would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003), however distress is an unlikely result of this project based on observations of marine mammals during previous, similar projects in the area.

Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest ( e.g., those used for intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural ( e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic ( e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest ( e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities ( e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound is high ( e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked. The San Diego area contains active military and commercial shipping, cruise ship and ferry operations, as well as numerous recreational and other commercial vessel and background sound levels in the area are already elevated as described in Dahl and Dall'Osta (2019).

Diamond wire saws, underwater chainsaws, and pile clippers may be used to assist with removal of piles. The sounds produced by these activities are of similar frequencies to the sounds produced by vessels (NAVFAC SW, 2020), and are anticipated to diminish to background noise levels (or be masked by background noise levels) in the Bay relatively close to the project site. Therefore, the effects of this equipment are likely to be similar to those discussed above in the Behavioral Harassment section.

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds that occur near the project site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile removal that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.

Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move further from the source. However, these animals would previously have been `taken' because of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.

The Navy's construction activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat and their prey by increasing in-water sound pressure levels and slightly decreasing water quality. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). During vibratory pile removal or pile cutting, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify San Diego Bay where both fishes and mammals occur and could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area during construction, however, displacement due to noise is expected to be temporary and is not expected to result in long-term effects to the individuals or populations. Construction activities are of short duration and would likely have temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in underwater and airborne sound.

A temporary and localized increase in turbidity near the seafloor would occur in the immediate area surrounding the area where piles are removed. In general, turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to about a 25-foot (7.6-meter) radius around the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). The sediments of the project site are sandy and would settle out rapidly when disturbed. Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the pile removal areas to experience effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds could avoid localized areas of turbidity. Local strong currents are anticipated to disburse any additional suspended sediments produced by project activities at moderate to rapid rates depending on tidal stage. Therefore, we expect the impact from increased turbidity levels to be discountable to marine mammals and do not discuss it further.

The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small compared to the available habitat ( e.g., the impacted area is in the Bay mouth only) of San Diego Bay and does not include any Biologically Important Areas or other habitat of known importance. The area is highly influenced by anthropogenic activities. The total seafloor area affected by pile removal is a very small area compared to the vast foraging area available to marine mammals in the San Diego Bay. At best, the impact area provides marginal foraging habitat for marine mammals and fish. Furthermore, pile removal at the project site would not obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.

Avoidance by potential prey ( i.e., fish) of the immediate area due to the temporary loss of this foraging habitat is also possible. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile removal stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity due to temporary species displacement.

Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species ( e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and location. Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on known marine mammal prey.

Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning ( e.g., Zelick and Mann, 1999; Fay, 2009). Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory structures, which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure and particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may include behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), and mortality.

Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation ( e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are based on studies in support of large, multi-year bridge construction projects ( e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Several studies have demonstrated that impulse sounds might affect the distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially impacting foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs ( e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, some studies have shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds ( e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Cott et al., 2012).

SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4-6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours for one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual fish is close to the source and when the duration of exposure is long. Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 2013).

Because of the rarity of use and research, the effects of pile clippers, diamond wire saws, underwater chainsaws, and water jetting are not fully known; but given their similarity to ship noises we do not expect unique effects from these activities.

The most likely impact to fish from pile removal activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated.

Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, have the potential to adversely affect forage fish in the project area. Forage fish form a significant prey base for many marine mammal species that occur in the project area. Increased turbidity is expected to occur in the immediate vicinity (on the order of 10 feet (3 m) or less) of construction activities. However, suspended sediments and particulates are expected to dissipate quickly within a single tidal cycle. Given the limited area affected and high tidal dilution rates any effects on forage fish are expected to be minor or negligible. Finally, exposure to turbid waters from construction activities is not expected to be different from the current exposure; fish and marine mammals in San Diego Bay are routinely exposed to substantial levels of suspended sediment from natural and anthropogenic sources.

In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with individual pile removal events and the relatively small areas being affected, pile removal activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. Thus, we conclude that impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations.

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

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

Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns and TTS for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to the sounds produced from the underwater acoustic sources ( i.e., vibratory hammer, single use or concurrent use of pile clippers, underwater chainsaw, diamond wire saw). Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures ( i.e., PSO monitoring and shutdown zone) discussed in detail below in the Proposed Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Measures section, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.

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

Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals would be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that would be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available ( e.g., previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.

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

Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 μPa (root mean square (rms)) for continuous ( e.g., vibratory hammer) and above 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive ( e.g., impact hammers (pile-driving)) or intermittent ( e.g., scientific sonar) sources.

The Navy's pile removal activities includes the use of stationary, non-impulsive, and continuous noise sources (vibratory hammer, diamond wire saw, underwater chainsaw, single use or concurrent use of pile clippers), and therefore the 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) is applicable. However, as discussed above, the Navy measurements support an ambient noise estimate of 129.6 dB re 1 μPa (rms) in the project area. Accordingly, we have adjusted the standard Level B harassment threshold of 120 dB to 129.6 dB, as it likely provides a more realistic and accurate basis for predicting Level B harassment in the San Diego Bay area.

Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (NMFS, 2018a) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The Navy's pile removal activities includes the use of non-impulsive (vibratory pile removal and other cutting and removal methods) sources.

These thresholds are provided in Table 3 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2018a Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that would feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, which include source levels, durations, and transmission loss coefficient.

The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project ( i.e., vibratory pile removal, diamond wire saw, single use or concurrent use of pile clippers, and underwater chainsaws).

Vibratory hammers produce constant sound when operating, and produce vibrations that liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile, allowing it to penetrate to the required seating depth or be withdrawn more easily. The actual durations of each method vary depending on the type and size of the pile.

In order to calculate the distance to the Level B harassment sound threshold for piles of various sizes being used in this project, the Navy used acoustic monitoring data from other locations and projects to develop source levels for the various pile types, sizes, and methods of removal. Data for the removal methods ( i.e., a diamond wire saw, individual use or concurrent use of pile clippers, and an underwater chainsaw) comes from data gathered at other nearby or related Navy projects as reported in their San Diego Noise Compendium (NAVFAC SW, 2020). The only exception to this would be the sound source data for the vibratory hammer, which was sourced from the City of Seattle Pier 62 project (Greenbusch Group, 2018). The source levels for the pile clippers, single and simultaneous use, and underwater chainsaw for this project utilized the mean maximum RMS SPL rather than the median sound levels we typically use as this would provide a more conservative measure. The diamond wire saw utilized the noise profile measurements associated with the removal of 66-inch and 84-inch caissons in the Navy Compendium (NAVFAC SW, 2020).). The Navy has noted, and we agree, that these values are likely much lower in reality as this proposed project would remove 16-inch concrete piles instead of the much larger varients modeled in the Compendium. However, no recorded data currently exists for the wire saws cutting concrete; therefore, we used the mean of the source level data from the Navy Compendium. The vibratory hammer used the highest average weighted RMS sound level per the Seattle Pier 62 project acoustic monitoring report (Greenbusch Group, 2018).

During pile removal activities, there may be times when two pile extraction methods ( i.e., pile clippers) are used simultaneously. The likelihood of such an occurrence is anticipated to be infrequent, would depend on the specific methods chosen by the contractor, and would be for short durations on that day. In-water pile removal occurs intermittently, and it is common for removal to start and stop multiple times as each pile is adjusted and its progress is measured. Moreover, the Navy has multiple options for pile removal depending on the pile type and condition, sediment, and how stuck the pile is, etc. When two continuous noise sources, such as pile clippers, have overlapping sound fields, there is potential for higher sound levels than for non-overlapping sources. When two or more pile removal methods (pile clippers) are used simultaneously, and the sound field of one source encompasses the sound field of another source, the sources are considered additive and combined using the following rules (see Table 4). For addition of two simultaneous methods, the difference between the two sound source levels (SSLs) is calculated, and if that difference is between 0 and 1 dB, 3 dB are added to the higher SSL; if difference is between 2 or 3 dB, 2 dB are added to the highest SSL; if the difference is between 4 to 9 dB, 1 dB is added to the highest SSL; and with differences of 10 or more dB, there is no addition (NMFS, 2018b; WSDOT, 2018).

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

The Navy provided estimates to NMFS for the duration of sound exposure for each pile removal activity. The durations used in this proposed project for each pile removal method were noted as “conservative estimates that are greater than durations observed in the San Diego Noise Compendium” by the Navy. In discussions with NMFS, the Navy has explained that the average durations found in the IHA application and Compendium were based around data collected in the from the old Fuel Pier demolition projects (NAVFAC SW 2014, 2015a, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, and 2018b). These values were adjusted to account for either the maximum amount of time the activity could occur ( i.e., pile clippers), a duration that is greater than the maximum ( i.e., underwater chainsaw and vibratory hammer), or an adjusted duration based on the removal of a smaller pile ( i.e., diamond wire saw) in order to provide somewhat more conservative measurements using real-world data. These values were likely considered more realistic for past projects and could safely be assumed as conservative for this proposed project as the Navy will be cutting smaller sized piles. The Navy also performed an “ultra-conservative” hypothetical review by modeling a 1-hour duration for each pile being removed. Using a rate of five piles removed per day, the resulting Level A harassment isopleths were still smaller than the 20 m shutdown zone the Navy plans to implement. Further information on durations can be found in the Compendium (NAVFAC SW, 2020).

All inputs used in the User Spreadsheet are reported below in Table 5.

For this project, we modeled sound propagation using the practical spreading value of 15 for transmission loss for all pile removal methods, except for the removal of the 13-inch polycarbonate piles. For this, 11.7 was used as the transmission loss coefficient as this value was a calculated measure from recorded data that was fit with a logarithmic trendline during the clipping of a 13-inch round concrete pile using small pile clippers in February 2017 at the old Fuel Pier (NAVFAC SW, 2020). The above input scenarios lead to PTS isopleth distances (Level A harassment thresholds) of less than 1 meter for all methods and piles (Table 6).

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

The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate assumption for the Navy's proposed activity in the absence of specific modeling. We used the Navy's realistic, site-specific averaged median ambient noise measurement of 129.6 dB RMS re 1 μPa for the Level B harassment threshold in San Diego Bay (NAVFAC SW, 2020). It should be noted that based on the bathymetry and geography of San Diego Bay, sound would not reach the full distance of the Level B harassment isopleths in all directions.

To determine the most appropriate and conservative Level B harassment isopleths, we compared two methods and selected the isopleth between each method that was largest, thus providing the greatest coverage for the Level B harassment zone. Level B harassment isopleths were considered appropriate based on the distance where the source level reached the 129.6 dB ambient value. The two methods compared the empirical data provided in the Navy's Compendium for work at Naval Base Point Loma (NAVFAC SW, 2020) with the Practical Spreading Loss model using a transmission loss coefficient of 15, as described above. Results of each method are shown in Table 6 and described below.

For the Compendium method, the average and maximum sound levels (in dB re 1 µPa) measured at the source (10 m) and then at various far-field distances typically showed a monotonic decline in average and maximum sound pressure levels asas distance increased. The Navy chose to use the average values for two main reasons: (1) Consistency with using the average median (L50) ambient values; and (2) average source values were used for the same activities in the Pier 6 project nearby (86 FR 7993, February 3, 2021). However, some level of variability in the recorded sound pressure levels was present where noise levels would drop to ambient levels and then increase to higher levels at greater distances. An example of this would be measurements for the 84-inch caisson removal by a single wire saw. At source (10 m), the average and maximum source levels exceeded the ambient noise levels for both measurements at the source (136.1 and 141.4 dB re 1 µPa; 140.9 and 146.5 dB re 1 µPa, respectively). At far-field distances (>20 m), the averages show variability with a gradual decline and then a subsequent increase, i.e., 140.8 dB re 1 µPa at 20 m and 134.8 at 40 m, then 137.1 dB re 1 µPa at 60 m. The distance where sound was measured ends at 283 m from the source with an average level of 130.3 dB re 1 µPa and a maximum level of 137.0 dB re 1 µPa, both in exceedance of the ambient level. These instances could be attributed to the presence of vessel traffic at distance from the acoustic recorder, causing some interference or competing background noise to the pure sound measurements of the wire saw or to random variation from other acoustic effects related to the specific location of the hydrophone. In any event, the distance at which the sound declined below ambient was not always entirely clear and the Navy was unable to develop a consistent criterion to determine the likely distance at which sound decreased below ambient or to account for factors like the topography or hydrophone location. Therefore we describe the analysis of the Navy Compendium's field data for each pile removal method individually below.

For the 13-inch polycarbonate piles with pile clippers the Navy believes that at between 300 and 400 m (984 to 1,312 ft), a majority of the background noise measured is directly related to traffic transiting to/from the Everingham Brothers Bait Company (EBBCO) bait barges which are to the southwest of the project area. Boat traffic for that specific route ranges from small boats to large recreational/commercial fishing vessels and traffic is nearly constant throughout the day. Because of that, the Navy believes values between those distances would likely be artificially high relative to the transmission loss associated with the project-related activities. Furthermore, with the turning basin (see Figure 2), the slope rises up from a max depth of 20.12 m (66 ft) to 11.58 m (38 ft) between 200 to 400 m (656.17 to 1,312.34 ft). As is evidenced by the Navy's acoustical model for south-central San Diego Bay (see the Naval Base Point Loma Pier 6 project at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-naval-base-san-diego-pier-6-replacement-project-san-diego ), changes in bathymetry ( i.e., channel walls) act as noise attenuators. Therefore, the Navy estimated the Level B harassment isopleth for this source at 350 m, smaller than the Practical Spreading Loss model prediction of 423 m. Given the uncertainty discussed above, we used the 423 m distance for the Level B harassment isopleth.

For the one pile clipper on concrete pile source, the Navy again believes the Compendium data were influenced by boat activity and topography of the channel. In this particular case, Table 39 of the Compendium shows that the average dB level at 215 m was 129.0 dB RMS. However, the two measurements at 309 m were split, one higher and one lower than the value at 215 m. The Navy decided that “Understanding that acoustics is not an “exact science,” we evaluated the data and chose a distance (250 m) that fit the data (average noise levels dropped below 129.6 dB at between 215 and 309 m).” As this 250 m distance exceeded the practical spreading loss model distance of 145 m, we chose the 250 m distance for the Level B harassment isopleth.

For the two pile clipper on concrete pile source the Navy decided that “Because the project footprint is parallel to the shoreline, we created a monitoring zone that used a source level of 150 dB, but at two points at the extreme north and south of the project footprint (see Fig 6-3 in the IHA application) because we felt that this would generate a more conservative” zone that led to an estimate of the Level B harassment isopleth of 250 m. As this 250 m distance exceeded the practical spreading loss model distance of 229 m, we chose the 250 m distance for the Level B harassment isopleth.

For the underwater chainsaw the Navy noted the “transmission loss (27logR) was steep when compared to other equipment, but the source value was in line with the pile clippers. Because of the very steep TL value, we looked at the perceived far-field data points for the clipper activities and chose a distance that was in-between the drop off to ambient for the chainsaw (from 26 to 45 m) and the clippers (250 m).” The Navy estimated the Level B harassment isopleth for this source at 45 m, smaller than the Practical Spreading Loss model prediction of 229 m. Given the uncertainty discussed above, we used the 229 m distance for the Level B harassment isopleth.

For the diamond wire saw the Navy again believes the Compendium data were influenced by boat activity and topography of the channel. The available data are from caissons which consist of 1.5 inch thick hardened steel shells filled with concrete, and with wooden piles in the center of the concrete. For lack of information on wire saws, the Navy evaluated the likely far-field values for the potential zones based on the 84-inch caissons (Table 34 in the Compendium), which had more data at multiple distances. The Navy “felt that this was a valid approach based on the similarity of the average noise data at 40 m (132.5 dB for 66-inch caisson, 134.8 for the 84-inch caisson). Per Table 34, using the average dB values at distance, the data shows a drop below 129.6 dB RMS at 200 m, but a rise again at 283 m. If you plot the regression curve based on the average 84-inch data, we cross the ambient threshold at app[roximately] 350 m . . . Because the data at far-field distances was variable, we chose a monitoring zone (350 m) that was based on the available real-time data. . . . Our assumption is that, if a wire saw were to be used on the concrete piles, the noise levels would be lower than either the 66- or 84-inch caisson.” The Navy estimated the Level B harassment isopleth for this source at 350 m, smaller than the Practical Spreading Loss model prediction of 575 m. Given the uncertainty discussed above, we used the 575 m distance for the Level B harassment isopleth.

In this section, we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that would inform the take calculations. Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.

We examined two approaches towards estimating the Level B take for the requested six marine mammal species within the project area at Naval Base Point Loma. The first approach was using our standard approach of using species density multiplied by isopleth size. The second approach utilized daily sightings from monitoring reports produced from past Navy projects at Naval Base Point Loma (NAVFAC SW, 2015a; NACFAC SW, 2017; NAVFAC SW, 2018).

Density estimates for any specific area assumes that the species' in question are evenly distributed across the entire site, which is rarely the case. Using the first approach for this project, we examined the use of densities, using an overall density for San Diego Bay, within a much smaller and definitive area (specifically Naval Base Point Loma). This approach, in combination with the predicted Level B harassment isopleths, yielded take estimates that were determined to not be conservative enough in nature for these proposed activities and activity source levels as compared to the results of the in situ measurements included in the Navy's Compendium (NAVFAC SW, 2020) and as discussed above. Furthermore, the take estimates produced from this method did not appropriately account for group size of all marine mammal species as the density estimate was for a much larger area (consisting of a primarily offshore environment) and assumed a much larger spread of marine mammals. Therefore, this approach was not utilized and will not be discussed further.

The second approach utilized average daily sightings from the Year 1-5 monitoring reports from IHAs that were previously issued (NAVFAC SW, 2015a; NACFAC SW, 2017; NAVFAC SW, 2018). This information was provided by the Navy in Table 7.

The Year 1 and 2 monitoring reports demonstrated marine mammal estimates during a potential and known El Niño year, respectively. Because of this, these values were likely not representative of the typical conditions around Naval Base Point Loma and were not preferred.

California sea lions, harbor seals, and bottlenose dolphins were recorded during all other years. Within these, Year 4 was considered the most conservative as these activities consisted of the longest duration (152 days) with the highest number of sightings for these species. So for these species we used the Year 4 average daily values.

Pacific white-sided dolphins were only recorded during Year 2. While these estimates are likely not fully representative of the typical distributions of Pacific white-sided dolphins around San Diego Bay, they will serve as the basis for our conservative take estimates for this species. Common dolphins were observed in Years 1 and 2; however, the length of the project period in Year 2 (100 days) was considered more representative than the Year 1 project (10 days). Therefore, the values from the Year 2 estimates were used for common dolphins. A single Northern elephant seal was only recorded to have hauled out on a beach twice during all Year1-5 work. Due to this, no average daily estimates were present for analysis; however, some discretionary take is proposed to be authorized in the event Northern elephant seals are present during this proposed action.

For all species (excluding Northern elephant seals), these daily sightings were extrapolated over the number of days of pile removal activities (84).

This second approach yielded larger and more conservative Level B take estimates, but more realistic for particular species occurrence and group size given the data was previously collected at the location of this proposed project for similar or the same species during past projects. Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.

By following this daily occurrence-based approach using past sightings at Naval Base Point Loma, we would expect that 15 California sea lions, 1 harbor seal, 9 common dolphins, 1 Pacific white-sided dolphin, and 1 bottlenose dolphin would be sighted per day. Multiplication of the above daily occurrences times the number of pile removal days planned (84) results in the proposed Level B harassment take of 1,260 California sea lions, 84 harbor seals, 756 common dolphins, 84 Pacific white-sided dolphins, and 84 bottlenose dolphins (see Table 8 for final estimates).

The Navy has noted that northern elephant seals are very rarely seen in this area, with the only true record being of a hauled out and distressed juvenile during the Year 2 IHA (NAVFAC SW, 2015a). As a precaution that a greater number of northern elephant seal may occur around Naval Base Point Loma, we propose to authorize seven Level B takes.

By using the sighting-based approach, take values are not affected by the chosen isopleth sizes from Table 6.

Given the very small Level A harassment isopleths for all species, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for this authorization.

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

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

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

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

The following mitigation measures are proposed in the IHA:

• All pile removal activities will occur individually, with the exception for the removal of the 14-inch and 16-inch concrete piles, which may be removed simultaneously by use of the pile clippers;

• A 20 m (66-ft) shutdown zone will be implemented around all pile removal activities (Table 9). If a marine mammal enters the shutdown zones, pile removal activities must be delayed or halted;

• Two Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will be employed and establish monitoring locations. The Holder must establish monitoring locations as described in the Monitoring Plan. For all pile removal activities, a minimum of one PSO must be assigned to each active pile removal location to monitor the shutdown zones. PSO(s) must be able to monitor the entire shutdown zone and the entire Level B harassment zone, or out to at least 400 m of the radial distance of the larger Level B harassment zones towards the Navigation Channel. In the event of concurrent pile removal ( i.e., via two pile clippers) at two different locations that cannot be appropriately monitored by one PSO, the pier or location where the lead PSO is stationed being blocked by a refueling vessel or other obstruction, multiple PSOs may be necessary to monitor the necessary shutdown and Level B harassment zones;

• If pile removal activities have been halted or delayed due to the presence of a species in the shutdown zone, activities may commence only after the animal has been visually sighted to have voluntarily exited the shutdown zone, or after 15 minutes have passed without a re-detection of the animal;

• If the take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized species, or if a marine mammal species that is not authorized for this proposed project enters the Level B harassment zone, pile removal will cease until consultation with NMFS can occur. If in-water pile removal activities are occurring when a non-authorized species enters the Level B harassment zone, activities must shutdown;

• The placement of the PSOs during all pile removal activities will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible. Should environmental conditions deteriorate such that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone would not be visible ( e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile removal must be delayed until the lead PSO is confident that marine mammals within the shutdown could be detected;

• PSOs must record all observations of marine mammals as described in the Monitoring Plan, regardless of distance from the pile being driven. PSOs shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed;

• The marine mammal monitoring reports must contain the informational elements described in the Monitoring Plan;

• A draft marine mammal monitoring report, and PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data, must be submitted to NMFS within 90 calendar days after the completion of pile driving activities. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 calendar days, the draft report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 calendar days after receipt of comments; and

• In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the IHA-holder must immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) ( PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov and ITP.Potlock@noaa.gov ), NMFS and to the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the submitted Monitoring Plan and the Proposed Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Measures section of the IHA. Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving and removal must be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:

• Independent PSOs ( i.e., not construction personnel) who have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods must be used;

• At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization.

• Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience;

• Where a team of two or more PSOs are required, one PSO would be designated as the “Command”, or lead PSO, and would coordinate all monitoring efforts. The lead PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of an observer;

• In the event of concurrent pile removal activities, two lead PSOs may be designated and would coordinate and communicate all monitoring efforts if a single observer cannot observe the two concurrent activities. Each position would act independently and both would maintain the ability to call for a shutdown. Each lead PSOs would communicate to the other of a potential sighting of a marine protected species traveling from one location to the other within the appropriate shutdown and Level B zones during concurrent pile removal activities.

• The Navy must submit PSO Curriculum Vitae (CV) for approval by NMFS prior to the onset of pile driving.

PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:

• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;

• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;

• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and

• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.

Up to two PSOs would be employed. PSO locations would provide an unobstructed view of all water within the shutdown zone, and as much of the Level A and Level B harassment zones as possible. PSO locations have been discussed above. An additional monitoring location is described as follows:

(1) An additional monitoring location on the Fuel Pier trestle or on a captained vessel may be utilized for pre-activity monitoring if the monitoring zone is beyond the visual range of the lead PSO's position. This vessel would start south of the Project area (where potential marine mammal occurrence is lowest) before the pile removal activity has begun and move north.

Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after pile removal activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity and distance from the buffered shutdown zone and Level B harassment isopleth, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being removed.

The Navy has indicated in their application that they may perform hydroacoustic monitoring on any removal method and sound source that was not previously recorded and included in the Compendium of Underwater and Airborne Sound Data during Pile Installation and In-Water Demolition Activities in San Diego Bay, California (NAVFAC SW, 2020). However, as data from the Compendium (for pile clippers, wire saw, and underwater chainsaw) and the City of Seattle Pier 62 project (for the vibratory hammer; Greenbusch Group, 2018) are recent, it is unlikely hydroacoustic monitoring will occur during this project.

A draft marine mammal monitoring and acoustic measurement report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 calendar days after the completion of these activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date or issuance of any future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report would include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:

• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;

• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles were removed and by what method ( i.e., vibratory and if other removal methods were used);

• Weather parameters and water conditions during each monitoring period ( e.g., wind speed, percent cover, visibility, sea state);

• The number of marine mammals observed, by species, relative to the pile location and if pile removal was occurring at time of sighting;

• Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals observed;

• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;

• Distances and bearings of each marine mammal observed to the pile being driven or removed for each sighting (if pile removal was occurring at time of sighting);

• Description of any marine mammal behavior patterns during observation, including direction of travel and estimated time spent within the Level A and Level B harassment zones while the source was active;

• Number of individuals of each species (differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring zone, and estimates of number of marine mammals taken, by species (a correction factor may be applied to total take numbers, as appropriate);

• Detailed information about any implementation of any mitigation triggered ( e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of specific actions that ensued, and resulting behavior of the animal, if any;

• Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such as ability to track groups or individuals; and

• Submit all PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data (in a separate file from the Final Report referenced immediately above).

If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report would constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover 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), the lead PSO would report to the Navy POC. The Navy POC shall then report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the regional stranding coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, the Navy must immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS. The report must include the following information:

• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);

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

• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);

• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;

• Description of marine mammals observation in the 24-hours preceding the incident;

• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and

• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.

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

Level A harassment is extremely unlikely given the small size of the Level A harassment isopleths and the required mitigation measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. No mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity.

Pile removal activities have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the project activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment only from underwater sounds generated from pile cutting and removal activities. Takes could occur if individuals are present in the ensonified zones when these activities are underway. The potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Proposed Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Measures section).

Take would occur within a limited, confined area (mouth of San Diego Bay) of each stock's range. Level B harassment would be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation measures described herein. Further, the amount of take authorized is extremely small when compared to stock abundance.

Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile removal at the project site, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues they are disturbed by activities (as noted during modification to the Kodiak Ferry Dock (ABR, 2016; see 80 FR 60636, October 7, 2015)) or could become alert, avoid the area, leave the area, or display other mild responses that are not observable such as changes in vocalization patterns. Given the short duration of noise-generating activities per day and that pile removal would occur across six months, any harassment would be temporary. There are no areas or times of known biological importance for any of the affected species.

In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities would have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact reproduction or survival of any individual marine mammals, much less affect rates of recruitment or survival and would therefore not result in population-level impacts.

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

• No mortality or Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized;

• No biologically important areas have been identified with the project area;

• The Navy is required to implement mitigation measures to minimize impacts, such as PSO observation and a shutdown zone of 20 m (66 ft);

• For all species, San Diego Bay is a very small and peripheral part of their range; and

• Monitoring reports from similar work in San Diego Bay have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species impacted by the specified activities.

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

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

The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize is below one third of the estimated stock abundances for all 6 species (refer back to Table 8). For most requested species, the proposed take of individuals is less than 1% of the abundance of the affected stock (with exception for common bottlenose dolphins at 18.54%). This is likely a conservative estimate because it assumes all take are of different individual animals, which is likely not the case. Some individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the Proposed Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Measures section) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.

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

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

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

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the Navy to begin the Naval Base Point Loma Fuel Pier Inboard Pile Removal Project in San Diego, California on January 15, 2022, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Once started, the IHA would be valid for one year (end January 14, 2023). A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed Naval Base Point Loma Fuel Pier Inboard Pile Removal Project. We also request at this time comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activities section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activities section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the following conditions are met:

• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of the initial IHA).

• The request for renewal must include the following:

(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor ( e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).

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

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

The meeting will begin with Introductions and Adoption of Agenda, Approval of Verbatim Minutes and Meeting Summary from the May 3-4, 2021 webinar meeting, Election of Chair and Vice Chair and review of Scope of Work. The Committees will select an SSC Representative for the August 23-26, 2021 Gulf Council Meeting and review and discuss the SSC's Best Practices and Voting Procedures.

The Committees will review and hold a discussion on the Finalized Great Red Snapper Count (GRSC) Project Report, including presentations, background material on the finalized report and independent consultant reports. The Committees will review and discuss the updated Red Grouper Interim Analysis and Research Track and Operational Assessment Process Guidance Document, including a presentations, report, and background material.

The Committees will review Discuss the Research Track and Operational Assessment Process Guidance Document, followed by a Determination of Topical Working Groups for SEDAR 75: Gulf of Mexico Gray Snapper Operational Assessment. The Committees will then review and discuss the Scope of Work for Red Grouper Operational Assessment and the Scope of Work for the Vermilion Snapper Operational Assessment.

The Committees will determine the Approach to Assess the Gulf of Mexico Tilefish Complex, and then review the Interim Analysis Schedule and the Revised SEDAR Stock Assessment Schedule. The Committees will then review the Draft Southeast Regional Framework for Establishing the Best Scientific Information Available, including presentations; and, hold a discussion for National Standard 1 (NS1) Technical Guidance Subgroup 3 Tech Memo: Managing with Acceptable Catch Limits (ACLs) for data-limited stocks in federal fishery management plans—Review and recommendations for implementing 50 CFR 600.310(h)(2) flexibilities for data limited stocks, including background.

Following, the Committees will review King Mackerel Historical Harvest and Catch Limits, King Mackerel Historical Commercial Harvest Differences, and Greater Amberjack Historical Harvest and Catch Limits.

The Committees will review Updated Greater Amberjack Projections, discuss and receive a presentation on the Pilot Project on Allocation, and review Draft Options for Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 5.

The Committees will also review the Standardized Bycatch Reduction Methodology, and hold a discussion of Topic Leaders for Agenda Items. The Committees will then receive public comment, and then discuss any Other Business items.

The meeting will be also be broadcast via webinar. You may register for the webinar by visiting www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on the SSC meeting on the calendar.

The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on www.gulfcouncil.org as they become available.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take-action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Kathy Pereira, (813) 348-1630, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

The applicant proposes to determine the impacts of impulsive sounds on the behavior of leatherback sea turtles within Massachusetts waters and adjacent Federal waters. Researchers would (1) remotely deploy suction cup camera tags on 30 leatherbacks annually, (2) observe and film them from an aircraft, vessel, and underwater by polecam, (3) remotely scan them in-water for passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags, and (4) expose them to an underwater sound source. Up to 60 leatherbacks annually could be harassed during unsuccessful tag deployments or incidental sound exposure. Another 60 leatherbacks annually would be observed during aerial and vessel surveys, photographed, and remotely PIT tag scanned. Researchers also request to harass up to 30 unidentified sea turtles annually for incidental sound exposures. The permit would be valid for five years.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental take 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) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.

NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed one year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial authorization, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a Renewal. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time one-year Renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a Renewal IHA would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates section of the initial IHA issuance, provided all of the following conditions are met:

(1) A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of the initial IHA);

(2) The request for renewal must include the following:

• An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor ( e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take); and

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

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

An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed Renewal IHA. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-harassment-authorization-renewals.

On May 06, 2020, NMFS issued an IHA to Vineyard Wind to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization survey activities off the coast of Massachusetts in the areas of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 0522) and along potential submarine cable routes to landfall locations in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York (85 FR 26940), effective from June 01, 2020 through May 31, 2021. This IHA was re-issued on July 14, 2020 with the only change being a change in effective dates from June 21, 2020 through June 20, 2021 (85 FR 42357). On March 25, 2021, NMFS received an application for the Renewal IHA of the re-issued IHA. As described in the application for renewal, the activities for which incidental take is requested consist of activities that are covered by the initial authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report (available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act ) which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as a result of the activities conducted. The notice of the proposed Renewal IHA was published on June 8, 2021 (86 FR 30442).

Vineyard Wind plans to conduct marine site characterization surveys, specifically high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys, in support of offshore wind development projects in the areas of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (#OCS-A 0501 and #OCS-A 0522) (Lease Areas) and along potential submarine cable routes to landfall locations in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. The purpose of the marine site characterization surveys is to obtain a baseline assessment of seabed/sub-surface soil conditions in the Lease Areas and cable route corridors to support the siting of potential future offshore wind projects. Underwater sound resulting from Vineyard Wind's planned marine site characterization surveys has the potential to result in incidental take of 14 marine mammal species in the form of Level B behavioral harassment. Vineyard Wind requested a renewal of the initial IHA that was re-issued by NMFS in July 2020 on the basis that the activities as described in the Specified Activities section of the initial IHA would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a Renewal IHA would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of the initial IHA.

In their 2020 IHA application, Vineyard Wind estimated that it would take a year to complete the marine site characterization surveys. This schedule was based on 24-hour operations and included potential down time due to inclement weather. With up to eight survey vessels operating concurrently, a maximum of 736 vessel days were anticipated. Each vessel would maintain a speed of approximately 3.5 knots (kn; 6.5 kilometers (km)/hour) while transiting survey lines and each vessel would cover approximately 100 km per day. However, during the 2020-2021 survey season, Vineyard Wind completed only 184 vessel days of the 736 vessel days estimated to complete the work and only surveyed approximately 25 percent of the planned survey routes. Vineyard Wind predicts that a maximum of 552 vessel days, with up to 8 survey vessels operating concurrently, over 181 days will be required to survey the remaining routes, estimated to be approximately 55,200 km. This Renewal IHA authorizes harassment of marine mammals for this remaining survey distance using survey methods identical to those described in the initial IHA application; therefore, the anticipated effects on marine mammals and the affected stocks also remain the same. All active acoustic sources and mitigation and monitoring measures remain as described in the Federal Register notices of the proposed IHA (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020) and issued IHA (85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020). The amount of take requested for the Renewal IHA reflects the amount of remaining work in consideration of marine mammal monitoring data from the 2020 survey season resulting in equal or less take than that authorized in the initial IHA. The surveys would be a subset of, but otherwise identical to, those analyzed for the initial IHA.

A detailed description of the survey activities for which take is authorized here may be found in the Federal Register notices of the proposed IHA (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020), issued IHA (85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020), and reissued IHA (85 FR 42357, July 14, 2020) for the initial authorization. Vineyard Wind was not able to complete the survey activities analyzed in the initial IHA by the date the IHA expired (June 20, 2021). As such, the surveys Vineyard Wind will conduct under this Renewal IHA will be a continuation of the surveys as described in the initial IHA. The location and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the previous notices. Because part of the work has already been completed, the duration of the surveys conducted under the Renewal IHA will occur over less time than that described for the initial IHA (181 days versus 365 days); however, Vineyard Wind will continue to operate 24 hours per day to complete the work. This Renewal IHA is effective from July 15, 2021 through June 20, 2022.

A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which take is authorized here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the Federal Register notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020) and the proposed Renewal IHA (85 FR 30435, June 08, 2021). Upon receipt of Vineyard Wind's renewal request, NMFS reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature.

The draft 2020 Stock Assessment Report (SAR, available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports ) states that estimated abundance has increased for the Western North Atlantic stock of common dolphins, from 172,825 (CV=0.21) to 172,974 (CV=0.21), and decreased for the following marine mammal stocks since the issuance of the initial IHA: The Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales (from 1,396 (CV=0) to 1,393 (CV=0.15)), the Western North Atlantic stock of fin whales (from 7,418 (CV=0.25) to 6,802 (CV=0.24)), and the Canadian East coast stock of minke whales (from 24,202 (CV=0.3) to 21,968 (CV=0.31)). Abundance and density estimates for the Western North Atlantic stock of North Atlantic right whales have also been updated, and state that right whale abundance has decreased from 428 to 368 (95% CI 356-378) individuals (Pace 2021) and that densities have slightly increased in the Project Area from 0.105 whales per 100 square kilometers (km 2 ) to 0.169 whales per 100 km 2 (Roberts et al. 2020; note that the updated density estimate was not included in the Proposed Renewal). In addition, Oleson et al. (2020) provides evidence that was not available at time of the initial IHA that part of Vineyard Wind's Project Area coincides directly with year-round core foraging habitat North Atlantic right whales. NMFS discussed the importance of portions of the Project Area as core habitat for North Atlantic right whales in the proposed and final notices of the initial IHA, but did not include this discussion, or reference to the visual and acoustic detections of North Atlantic right whales indicating a nearly year-round presence discussed by Oleson et al. (2020) in the Proposed Renewal.

An additional update related to species for which take is authorized here that was not included in the proposed Renewal IHA, is the change in status of the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock from non-strategic to strategic reported in the draft SAR. This change was made because the detected mortality is estimated to be only 19 percent of all mortalities, and the total estimated human-caused annual mortality and serious injury is 51.5 animals compared to the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) estimate of 22 animals.

NMFS has determined that neither the updated abundance and density information presented above nor any other new information, including the information regarding year-round North Atlantic right whale core foraging habitat and the designation of the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock as strategic, affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA.

A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is authorized here may be found in the Federal Register notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, Technical Reports ( e.g., Oleson et al. 2020, Pace 2021), information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, other scientific literature ( e.g., Roberts et al. 2020), and the public comments. NMFS does not expect that the generally short-term, intermittent, and transitory HRG survey activities would impact the reproduction or survival of any of the species and stocks that have the potential to be affected by this authorization. Therefore, NMFS has determined that neither the information mentioned above nor any other new information affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.

A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the Federal Register notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020). The acoustic source types, as well as source levels applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the initial IHA. Similarly, the stocks taken, methods of take, and type of take ( i.e., Level B harassment only) remain unchanged from the initial IHA.

In the initial authorization for the marine site characterization survey activities, the potential for take was estimated using the following parameters: (1) Maximum number of survey days that could occur over a 12-month period; (2) maximum distance each vessel could travel per 24-hour period in each of the identified survey areas; (3) maximum ensonified area (zone of influence (ZOI)); and (4) mean annual densities for species in the area of specified activity. The calculated radial distances to the Level B harassment threshold (160 decibel (dB) root mean square (rms)) from a survey vessel are included in Table 1.

The equation for estimating take for all species remains the same as the initial IHA:

As described in the Federal Register notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020), Vineyard Wind calculated a conservative ZOI by applying the maximum radial distance for any category and type of HRG survey equipment considered in its assessment to the mobile source ZOI calculation. Vineyard Wind estimates that survey vessels will achieve a maximum daily track line distance of 100 km per day during proposed surveys. This distance accounts for the vessel traveling at roughly 3.5 kn (6.5 km/hour) and accounts for non-active survey periods. Based on the maximum estimated distance to the Level B harassment threshold of 195 m (Table 1) and the maximum estimated daily track line distance of 100 km, which are the same as were used in the initial IHA, Vineyard Wind estimated that an area of 39.12 km 2 will be ensonified to the Level B harassment threshold per day during Vineyard Wind's survey activities. This is a conservative estimate as it assumes the HRG sources that result in the greatest isopleth distances to the Level B harassment threshold will be operated at all times during all vessel days.

This methodology of calculating take in the initial IHA applies to this issued Renewal IHA for all species, with the only difference being the fewer amount of vessel days ( i.e., 552 versus 736). The result is that the amount of take is reduced proportionally to the reduction in the number of days of work remaining. Vineyard Wind has requested a deviation from the proportionally reduced calculated take for Risso's dolphins as described below. Other than in the additional instances described below, NMFS agrees with Vineyard Wind's request for take and we have authorized the same amount of take as described in their request.

In their application for a Renewal IHA, Vineyard Wind requested that the number of Level B harassment takes (per the equation above) for Risso's dolphins be equal to their average group size estimate (6 individuals), given a proportional reduction in take based on the reduction in the number of days of work remaining would result in a take estimate that is smaller than the average group size estimate. As described in Vineyard Wind's preliminary monitoring report, they did not observe any Risso's dolphins during the survey work thus far completed. Therefore, we have authorized the same amount of take as proposed in the initial IHA, which is based on an average group size of 6 Risso's dolphins (Table 2).

In the Federal Register notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020) NMFS limited takes by Level B harassment authorized for North Atlantic right whales to 10 individuals, which was reduced from an initially calculated take of 31 whales. There were several reasons justifying this reduction. Vineyard Wind established and monitored a shutdown zone at least 2.5 times (500-meters (m)) greater than the predicted Level B harassment threshold distance (195 m). Take had also been conservatively calculated based on the largest source, which will not be operating at all times, and take is therefore likely over-estimated to some degree. Furthermore, the potential for incidental take during daylight hours is very low given that two Protected Species Observers (PSOs) are required for monitoring (over the 500-m shutdown zone for North Atlantic right whales, compared with the 195-m estimated Level B harassment zone). Additionally, sightings of right whales had been uncommon during previous marine site characterization surveys conducted near Vineyard Wind's Project Area. For example, no North Atlantic right whales were sighted during Bay State Wind surveys in adjacent and overlapping survey areas over 376 vessel days between May 11, 2018 and March 14, 2019. Vineyard Wind also had no North Atlantic right whales sighted in their marine mammal monitoring report that included Lease Areas OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 0522 from May 31, 2019 through January 7, 2020. Therefore, the aforementioned factors led NMFS to conclude that the unadjusted modeled exposure estimate was likely a significant overestimate of actual potential exposure. Accordingly, in the initial IHA NMFS made a reasonable adjustment to conservatively account for these expected mitigating effects from the required mitigation measures on actual taking of right whales.

During the 2020-2021 surveys, Vineyard Wind reported four sightings of North Atlantic right whales (seven individuals) in their preliminary monitoring report. While all of these individuals were observed on a single day (December 20, 2020) and outside both the estimated 195-m Level B harassment Zone and the 500 m Exclusion Zone (EZ) for North Atlantic right whales (closest approaches were > 900 m), they represent an increased amount of sightings observed during marine site characterization surveys, though the information suggests that there were no takes.

Roberts et al. (2020) provided updated monthly densities of North Atlantic right whales in the area of proposed activities since the time of the initial IHA. These updated data for North Atlantic right whale densities incorporate additional sighting data and include increased spatial resolution. We reviewed the updated model documentation and recalculated the North Atlantic right whale density estimates following the same methods outlined in the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020). The new model results state that the mean annual North Atlantic right whale densities have slightly increased in the activity area from 0.105 whales per 100 square kilometers (km 2 ) to 0.169 whales per 100 km 2 . Despite the increase in sightings and densities of North Atlantic right whales in the survey area, we believe that an updated unadjusted modeled exposure estimate of 36 individuals based on these slightly increased densities would still represent a significant overestimate of the actual potential exposure, and therefore authorize the same amount of take (10 individuals) for this Renewal IHA as was authorized in the initial IHA, which accounts for the expected mitigating effects from the required mitigation measures on the actual taking of right whales.

As documented in Vineyard Wind's preliminary monitoring report, there were a number of sightings of delphinids both within the estimated 195 m Level B Harassment Zone and the 100 m EZ that were characterized by the PSOs as `voluntary approaches.' A “voluntary approach” is defined as a purposeful approach toward the vessel by the delphinid(s) with a speed and vector that indicates that the delphinid(s) is approaching the vessels and remains near the vessel or towed equipment (BOEM 2014). Vineyard Wind PSOs reported 270 sightings of approximately 3,332 individual common dolphins within the estimated 195 m Level B harassment zone (note that these observations did not all occur during actual use of the source for which this zone is estimated, and that the actual zone at the time of observation would have been smaller). Given that Vineyard Wind observed more common dolphins than expected, we authorize the same amount of take (2,036 individuals) as authorized in the initial IHA, as opposed to decreasing it commensurate to the reduced amount of activity remaining. Thus, take numbers authorized in this Renewal IHA (Table 2) represent prorated estimates for all species except North Atlantic right whales, Risso's dolphins, and common dolphins whose authorized take estimates remain the same as authorized in the initial IHA.

On August 20, 2020 Vineyard Wind PSOs observed two white-beaked dolphins within the 195 m Level B harassment zone for the sparker during the first year of Vineyard Wind's survey activities. White-beaked dolphins were considered unlikely to be encountered in the survey area and, therefore, take was not considered reasonably likely to occur and was not authorized in the initial IHA. This species has historically been found in waters outside of the survey area, from southern New England to southern Greenland and Davis Straits (Leatherwood et al. 1976, CETAP 1982, Hayes et al. 2019), across the Atlantic to the Barents Sea and south to at least Portugal (Reeves et al. 1999). In waters off the northeastern U.S. coast, white-beaked dolphin sightings are typically concentrated in the western Gulf of Maine and around Cape Cod (CETAP 1982, Hayes et al. 2019). The dolphins observed during the 2020-2021 surveys were first sighted as unidentified dolphins due to the decreased visibility under sea state 3 conditions, creating challenges in identification. Given the dolphins were of genera Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, or Tursiops, and in accordance with IHA condition 4(f)(vii), the PSO used their best professional judgment in determining that the animals were exempted from the shutdown requirement. After less than a minute of bow riding the dolphins began swimming away and at the end of the sighting the PSO was able to make a positive ID. The PSO determined the animal was leaving the zone and therefore no mitigation was required. The PSO determined that there was no behavioral change or signs of distress and thus Vineyard Wind did not report the sighting as a potentially unauthorized Level B harassment take. Despite this single observation of white beaked dolphins, encounters with the species in the survey area remain unlikely. For example, no sightings of white beaked dolphins have been reported in monitoring reports from other IHAs issued in the same region in recent years. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the initial determination that take of the species is not reasonably likely to occur and, therefore, that take authorization for the species is not warranted. We have clarified with Vineyard Wind the need to communicate any sightings of rare species to NMFS as soon as possible.

The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the Federal Register notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020), and the discussion of the least practicable adverse impact included in that document and the notice of the proposed IHA remains accurate (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020). All mitigation, monitoring and reporting measures in the initial IHA are carried over to this Renewal IHA and summarized here:

• EZ: Marine mammal EZs will be established around the HRG survey equipment and monitored by PSO during HRG surveys as follows: A 500-m EZ is required for North Atlantic right whales and a 100-m EZ is required for all other marine mammals (with the exception of certain genera of small delphinids ( i.e., Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, and Tursiops ) under certain circumstances, such as individuals voluntary approaching the vessel). If a marine mammal is detected approaching or entering the EZs during the planned survey, the vessel operator would adhere to the shutdown procedures described below. In addition to the EZs described above, PSOs would visually monitor a 200-m Buffer Zone; however, this Buffer Zone is not applicable when the EZ is greater than 100 m. PSOs would also be required to observe a 500-m Monitoring Zone and record the presence of all marine mammals within this zone and within the Level B harassment zone. The zones described above would be based upon the radial distance from the active equipment (rather than being based on distance from the vessel itself).

• PSO: A minimum of two NMFS-approved PSOs must be on duty and conducting visual observations at all times on all active survey vessels when HRG equipment is operating, including both daytime and nighttime operations. Visual monitoring would begin no less than 30 minutes prior to initiation of HRG survey equipment and would continue until 30 minutes after use of the acoustic source ceases or until 30 minutes past sunset. However, Vineyard Wind has committed to 24-hr use of PSOs. PSOs would establish and monitor the applicable EZs, Buffer Zone and Monitoring Zone as described above.

• Pre-Operation Clearance Protocols: Prior to initiating HRG survey activities, Vineyard Wind would implement a 30-minute pre-clearance period. Ramp-up of the survey equipment would not begin until the relevant zones (500-m EZ for North Atlantic right whales and 200-m Buffer Zone for all other species) have been cleared by the PSOs. If any marine mammals are detected within the relevant EZs or Buffer Zone during the pre-clearance period, initiation of HRG survey equipment would not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the respective EZ or Buffer Zone, or, until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sighting ( i.e., minimum 15 minutes for small odontocetes and seals, and 30 minutes for all other species). The pre-clearance requirement would include small delphinids that approach the vessel ( e.g., bow ride). PSOs would also continue to monitor the zone for 30 minutes after survey equipment is shut down or survey activity has concluded.

• Ramp-up: A ramp-up procedure would be used for geophysical survey equipment capable of adjusting energy levels at the start or re-start of survey activities. Ramp-up of the survey equipment would not begin until the relevant EZs and Buffer Zone has been cleared by the PSOs, as described above. HRG equipment would be initiated at their lowest power output and would be incrementally increased to full power. If any marine mammals are detected within the EZs or Buffer Zone prior to or during ramp-up, the HRG equipment would be shut down (as described below).

• Shutdown of HRG Equipment: If an HRG source is active and a marine mammal is observed within or entering a relevant EZ (as described above) an immediate shutdown of the HRG survey equipment would be required. Note this shutdown requirement would be waived for certain genera of small delphinids as described above. Subsequent restart of the HRG equipment would only occur after the marine mammal has either been observed exiting the relevant EZ, or, until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sighting of the animal within the relevant EZ ( i.e., 15 minutes for small odontocetes and seals, and 30 minutes for all other species).

• Vessel strike avoidance measures: Separation distances for large whales (500 m North Atlantic Right Whales, 100 m other large whales; 50 m other cetaceans and pinnipeds), restricted vessel speeds including a requirement that all vessel operators comply with 10 kn (18.5 km/hour) or less speed restrictions in any SMA or DMA while underway, and operational maneuvers.

• Seasonal Operating Requirements: Vineyard Wind will conduct survey activities in the Cape Cod Bay Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management Area (SMA) and Off Race Point SMA only during the months of August and September to ensure sufficient buffer between the SMA restrictions (January to May 15) and known seasonal occurrence of the North Atlantic right whale north and northeast of Cape Cod (fall, winter, and spring). Vineyard Wind will also limit to three the number survey vessels that will operate concurrently from March through June within the lease areas (OCS-A 0501 and 0487) and offshore export cable corridor (OECC) areas north of the lease areas up to, but not including, coastal and bay waters. Another seasonal restriction area south of Nantucket will be in effect from December to February in the area delineated by the DMA that was effective from January 31, 2020 through February 15, 2020. In addition, Vineyard Wind would operate either a single vessel, two vessels concurrently or, for short periods, no more than three survey vessels concurrently in the areas described above during the December-February and March-June timeframes when right whale densities are greatest. The seasonal restrictions described above will help to reduce both the number and intensity of North Atlantic right whale takes.

• Reporting: Vineyard Wind will submit a final technical report within 90 days following completion of the surveys. In the event that Vineyard Wind personnel discover an injured or dead marine mammal, Vineyard Wind shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. In the event of a ship strike of a marine mammal by any vessel involved in the activities covered by the authorization, Vineyard Wind shall report the incident to OPR, NMFS and to the New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible.

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue a Renewal IHA to Vineyard Wind was published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2021 (86 FR 30435). That notice either described, or referenced descriptions of, Vineyard Wind's activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, the anticipated effects on marine mammals and their habitat, estimated amount and manner of take, and proposed mitigation, monitoring and reporting measures. NMFS received comments from: (1) A group of environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Conservation Law Foundation, National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, Southern Environmental Law Center, Surfrider Foundation, Mass Audubon, Friends of the Earth, International Fund for Animal Welfare, NY4WHALES, WDC Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Marine Mammal Alliance Nantucket, Gotham Whale, All Our Energy, Seatuck Environmental Association, Inland Ocean Coalition, Nassau Hiking & Outdoor Club, Connecticut Audubon Society, and Cetacean Society international; and (2) Oceana.

The comments and our responses are summarized below.

Comment 1: The ENGOs and Oceana both recommended that NMFS expand upon the statement in the Federal Register notice of proposed Renewal IHA (85 FR 30435, June 08, 2021) that “the mean annual North Atlantic right whale densities have slightly increased in the activity area” since the initial IHA was published. They suggest that our qualitative summation of increased North Atlantic right whale densities in the project area likely underestimates the true importance of the area as a year-round core foraging habitat to North Atlantic right whales (Leiter et al. 2017; Oleson et al. 2020) and that this needs to be more fully explored, considered, and analyzed before an IHA is renewed. The ENGOs stressed that NMFS should be transparent in our decision-making regardless of levels of take and that we must publish the results of the updated analysis. They also stressed that NMFS must ensure undisturbed access to foraging habitat to adequately protect North Atlantic right whales since North Atlantic right whales employs a “high-drag” foraging strategy that enables them to selectively target high-density prey patches, but is energetically expensive.

Response: When assessing the appropriateness of a Renewal IHA NMFS must confirm, among other things, that no new information has been received that would alter the prior analysis. In the Federal Register notice of proposed Renewal IHA (85 FR 30435, June 08, 2021), NMFS discussed new information related to North Atlantic right whales including updated density estimates obtained from updated model outputs reported by Roberts et al. (2020). These habitat-informed density models offer the most comprehensive evaluation of North Atlantic right whale density along the east coast to date and consider both the spatial and temporal importance of the project area to right whales. These updated density estimates, which incorporated additional sighting data and included increased spatial resolution in the project area, suggest that the North Atlantic right whale densities in the project region slightly increased from 0.105 whales per 100 km 2 to 0.169 whales per 100 km 2 . While the increase in density was described, NMFS acknowledges that the actual updated density estimate was omitted from the Federal Register notice of proposed Renewal IHA (85 FR 30435, June 08, 2021) and therefore we have included this information along with the updated unadjusted modeled exposure estimate of 36 individuals in this Federal Register notice of the Renewal IHA.

In the proposed and final notices of the initial IHA, we discuss the importance of portions of the Project Area as core habitat for North Atlantic right whales. For example, data indicates that right whales occur at elevated densities in the Project Area south and southwest of Martha's Vineyard in the spring (March-May) and south of Nantucket during winter (December-February) (Roberts et al. 2018, Leiter et al. 2017, Kraus et al. 2016). In addition, consistent aggregations of right whales feeding and possibly mating within or close to these specific areas is such that they have been considered right whale “hotspots” (Leiter et al. 2017, Kraus et al. 2016). Oleson et al. (2020), which was referenced by the commenters but was not available at the time of the initial authorization of this IHA, provides additional evidence that part of the Project Area coincides directly with year-round core foraging habitat south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket islands where both visual and acoustic detections of North Atlantic right whales indicate a nearly year-round presence. We have included this information in this Federal Register notice of the issued Renewal IHA. Despite these areas being important year-round foraging habitat for right whales, NMFS notes that prey for North Atlantic right whales are mobile and broadly distributed throughout the project area; therefore, North Atlantic right whales are expected to be able to resume foraging once they have moved away from any areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. There is ample foraging habitat adjacent to the Project Area that is not ensonified by HRG sources. For example, in the fall of 2019 and 2020, North Atlantic right whales were particularly attracted to Nantucket Shoals, located to the east of the Project Area. Furthermore, the spatial acoustic footprint of the survey is very small relative to the spatial extent of the available foraging habitat.

NMFS concluded that there is no new information, including from the reports referenced by the commenters, suggesting that our analysis or findings should change for the Renewal IHA from those reached in the initial IHA. This includes consideration of our take estimate of 10 North Atlantic right whales despite slightly increased densities of right whales in the Project Area and the importance of portions of the Project area as year-round foraging habitat for right whales. Based on findings reported in Vineyard Wind's preliminary monitoring report and the expected mitigating effects from the required mitigation measures on the actual taking of right whales, we have concluded that the updated exposure estimate based on the updated density estimate represents a significant overestimate of the actual potential exposure, and therefore authorize the same amount of take (10 individuals) as proposed in the initial IHA and the Federal Register notice of proposed Renewal IHA (85 FR 30435, June 08, 2021). These mitigation measures include the use of two PSO observers at times when HRG equipment is in use, shutdown measures and vessel strike avoidance measures when North Atlantic right whales are sighted within the 500-m EZ (which is at least 2.5 times greater than the predicted Level B harassment threshold distance (195 m)), and seasonal restrictions that limit or prohibit survey activities during times and areas when North Atlantic right whales are found in higher densities. NMFS believes that these measures will minimize the impact that the proposed activities will have on this species, particularly in areas of importance such as year-round foraging habitats, to North Atlantic right whales.

Comment 2: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS incorporate additional data sources into calculations of marine mammal density and take and that NMFS must ensure all available data are used to ensure that any potential shifts in North Atlantic right whale habitat usage are reflected in estimations of marine mammal density and take. The ENGOs asserted in general that the density models used by NMFS do not fully reflect the abundance, distribution, and density of marine mammals for the U.S. East Coast and therefore result in an underestimate of take.

Response: Habitat-based density models produced by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab (MGEL) (Roberts et al. 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) represent the best available scientific information concerning marine mammal occurrence within the U.S. Atlantic Ocean. Density models were originally developed for all cetacean taxa in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean (Roberts et al. 2016); more information, including the model results and supplementary information for each of those models, is available at seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke-EC/. These models provided key improvements over previously available information, by incorporating additional aerial and shipboard survey data from NMFS and from other organizations collected over the period 1992-2014, incorporating 60 percent more shipboard and 500 percent more aerial survey hours than did previously available models; controlling for the influence of sea state, group size, availability bias, and perception bias on the probability of making a sighting; and modeling density from an expanded set of 8 physiographic and 16 dynamic oceanographic and biological covariates. In subsequent years, certain models have been updated on the basis of additional data as well as methodological improvements. In addition, a new density model for seals was produced as part of the 2017-18 round of model updates.

Of particular note, Roberts et al. (2020) further updated density model results for North Atlantic right whales by incorporating additional sighting data and implementing three major changes: Increasing spatial resolution, generating monthly estimates on three time periods of survey data, and dividing the study area into 5 discrete regions. This most recent update—model version nine for North Atlantic right whales—was undertaken with the following objectives (Roberts et al. 2020):

• To account for recent changes to right whale distributions, the model should be based on survey data that extend through 2018, or later if possible. In addition to updates from existing collaborators, data should be solicited from two survey programs not used in prior model versions including aerial surveys of the Massachusetts and Rhode Island Wind Energy Areas led by New England Aquarium (Kraus et al. 2016), spanning 2011-2015 and 2017-2018 and recent surveys of New York waters, either traditional aerial surveys initiated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in 2017, or digital aerial surveys initiated by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority in 2016, or both.

• To reflect a view in the right whale research community that spatiotemporal patterns in right whale density changed around the time the species entered a decline in approximately 2010, consider basing the new model only on recent years, including contrasting “before” and “after” models that might illustrate shifts in density, as well as a model spanning both periods, and specifically consider which model would best represent right whale density in the near future;

• To facilitate better application of the model to near-shore management questions, extend the spatial extent of the model farther in-shore, particularly north of New York; and

• Increase the resolution of the model beyond 10 km, if possible.

All of these objectives were met in developing the most recent update to the North Atlantic right whale density model.

As noted above, NMFS has determined that the Roberts et al. suite of density models represent the best available scientific information. However, NMFS acknowledges that there will always be additional data that is not reflected in the models and that may inform our analyses, whether because the data were not made available to the model authors or because the data is more recent than the latest model version for a specific taxon.

The ENGOs pointed to additional data that can be obtained from sightings databases, passive acoustic monitoring efforts, aerial surveys, and autonomous vehicles. The ENGO's pointed specifically to monthly standardized marine mammal aerial surveys flown in the Massachusetts and Rhode Island and Massachusetts Wind Energy Areas by the New England Aquarium from October 2018 through August 2019 and March 2020 through July 2021. The 2018-2019 New England Aquarium study showed that North Atlantic right whale distribution changed seasonally, with several sightings of North Atlantic right whales in Lease Area OSC-A 0522 in the winter, one sighting in Lease Area OSC-A 0501 in the spring, and no other sightings in Vineyard Wind's lease areas during other portions of the year. Information on the results from the 2020-2021 aerial survey is currently unavailable. The commenters also referenced a study funded by the Bureau of Offshore Energy Management (BOEM) using an autonomous vehicle for real-time acoustical monitoring of marine mammals from December 2019 through March 2020 and again from December 2020 through February 2021 on Cox Ledge, located approximately 35 miles east of Montauk Point, New York between Block Island and Martha's Vineyard. Note that only a small portion of BOEM's acoustic study area overlapped with Vineyard Wind's Project Area. Between December 21, 2020 and March 30, 2020 (91 days) North Atlantic right whales were acoustically detected on 13 days and possibly detected on an additional 3 days. No North Atlantic right whales were detected in BOEM's study area between March 25, 2021 and July 01, 2021 (98 days). The data from these recent studies does not indicate that NMFS should alter any of the required mitigation and monitoring requirements, particularly as NMFS considers impacts from these types of survey operations to be near de minimis and that Vineyard Wind is already required to adhere to time and area seasonal restrictions. It would be difficult to draw any qualitative conclusions from these study results given that most of the observations and detections occurred in only small portions of Vineyard Wind's Project Area.

NMFS will review any other recommended data sources that become available to evaluate their applicability in a quantitative sense ( e.g., to an estimate of take numbers) and, separately, to ensure that relevant information is considered qualitatively when assessing the impacts of the specified activity on the affected species or stocks and their habitat. NMFS will continue to use the best available scientific information, and we welcome future input from interested parties on data sources that may be of use in analyzing the potential presence and movement patterns of marine mammals, including North Atlantic right whales, in U.S. Atlantic waters. At this time, there are no additional new sources of density information that affects our analyses or determinations.

While the ENGO's referenced additional data, no specific recommendations were made with regard to use of this information in informing the take estimates. Rather, the commenters suggested that NMFS should “collate and integrate these and more recent data sets to more accurately reflect marine mammal presence for future IHAs and other work.” NMFS would welcome in the future constructive suggestions as to how these objectives might be more effectively accomplished. NMFS used the best scientific information available at the time the analyses for the proposed and final IHAs were conducted, and has considered all available data, including sources referenced by the commenters, in reaching its determinations in support of issuance of the Renewal IHA requested by Vineyard Wind.

Comment 3: Oceana asserted that NMFS' must use the best available science for assessing North Atlantic right whale abundance estimates. They state that North Atlantic right whales have experienced significant declines in the last decade and that NMFS should use the most recent population estimate to support the IHA which is being considered for renewal, which they state is the Pettis et al. (2020) estimate of 356 North Atlantic right whales. They commented that this estimate is nearly 14 percent lower than the estimate NMFS used in the analysis to support the proposed Renewal IHA.

Response: NMFS agrees that the best available and most recent science should be used for assessing North Atlantic right whale abundance estimates in the Renewal IHA, but disagrees that the Pettis et al. (2020) study represents the most recent and best available estimate for North Atlantic right whale abundance. Rather the revised abundance estimate published by Pace (2021) which was used in the proposed Renewal IHA provide the most recent and best available estimate, which suggest improvements to the model currently used to estimate North Atlantic right whale abundance. Specifically, Pace (2021) looked at a different way of characterizing annual estimates of age-specific survival. The results strengthened the case for a change in mean survival rates after 2010-2011, but did not significantly change other current estimates (population size, number of new animals, adult female survival) derived from the model. The estimate reported by Pace (2021) and used in the Federal Register notice of proposed Renewal IHA (85 FR 30435, June 08, 2021) and in this Renewal IHA is 368 (95% CI 356-378) whales. Of note, the estimate proposed by Pettis et al. (2020) of 356 right whales is only three percent, not 14 percent, lower than this newly available estimate, which NMFS has determined is the most appropriate estimate to use.

Comment 4: The ENGOs asserted that the seasonal restrictions described in the Federal Register notice of proposed Renewal IHA (85 FR 30435, June 08, 2021) are not protective enough. They recommended additional seasonal restriction on site assessment and characterization activities in the Project Areas with the potential to harass North Atlantic right whales between November 1, 2021 and April 30, 2022 off the coasts of New York and Connecticut, and from December 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022 off the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The ENGOs also requested clarification regarding whether there would be a complete restriction on survey activities within seasonal restricted areas or that simply a reduction in survey vessels will be required.

Response: NMFS is concerned about the status of the North Atlantic right whale population given that an unusual mortality event (UME) has been in effect for this species since June of 2017 and that there have been a number of recent mortalities. While the ensonified areas contemplated for any single survey vessel are comparatively small and the anticipated resulting effects of exposure relatively lower-level, the potential impacts of multiple survey vessels (up to 8 according to Vineyard Wind) operating simultaneously in areas of higher right whale density are not well-documented and warrant caution.

NMFS reviewed the best available right whale density and abundance data for the planned survey area (Roberts et al. 2020, Pace et al. 2021). We determined that right whale abundance is significantly higher in the period starting in late winter and extending to late spring in specific sections of the survey area. As described in the initial IHA, based on this information NMFS determined that seasonal restrictions as described in the final IHA and proposed Renewal IHA are both warranted and practicable and thus defined seasonal restriction areas that Vineyard Wind must follow when conducting marine site characterization survey activities.

These restrictions include the requirement that survey activities may only occur in the Cape Cod Bay Seasonal Management Area (SMA) and off of the Race Point SMA during the months of August and September to ensure sufficient buffer between the SMA restrictions (January to May 15) and known seasonal occurrence of right whales north and northeast of Cape Cod (fall, winter, and spring). While there will not be a complete restriction on survey activities, Vineyard Wind will limit to three the number of survey vessels that will operate concurrently from March through June within the lease areas (OCS-A 0501 and 0487) and OECC areas north of the lease areas up to, but not including, coastal and bay waters. An additional seasonal restriction area was defined in the initial IHA south of Nantucket and will be in effect from December to February in the area delineated by the Dynamic Management Area (DMA or Slow Zone) that was effective from January 31, 2020 through February 15, 2020. DMAs have been established during this time frame in this area for the last several years. DMAs are temporary protection zones that are triggered when three or more whales are sighted within 2-3 miles of each other outside of active SMAs. The size of a DMA is larger if more whales are present.

The ENGOs recommended that additional restrictions be put into place, but they do not provide any evidence or support for the additional restrictions they recommend other than mentioning that North Atlantic right whales are expected to be present in the Project Area year-round. While we acknowledge that the North Atlantic right whale densities temporally fluctuate off the coasts of New York and Connecticut and off the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts and that North Atlantic right whales could be in the Project Area throughout the year, we have determined the seasonal restrictions described in the initial IHA and included in the Renewal IHA, paired with the other required mitigation and monitoring measures, are sufficiently protective. This is supported by findings from Vineyard Wind's preliminary monitoring report, which demonstrated that only four sightings of seven North Atlantic right whales were observed in the initial year of survey activities, all of which were observed on a single day (December 20, 2020). We have determined that additional seasonal restrictions are not warranted since NMFS considers impacts from these types of survey operations to be near de minimis. Further, the commenters have not demonstrated that additional seasonal restrictions would result in a net benefit given the cost and impracticability of implementing such measures.

Vineyard Wind is required to operate no more than three survey vessels concurrently in the areas described above during the December-February and March-June timeframes when right whale densities are greatest ( i.e., a reduction in the number of vessels is required rather than a complete restriction of survey activities). The seasonal restrictions described above will help to reduce both the number and intensity of right whale takes. Regarding practicability, the timing of Vineyard Wind's surveys is driven by a complex suite of factors including availability of vessels and equipment (which are used for other surveys and by other companies), other permitting timelines, and the timing of certain restrictions associated with fisheries gear, among other things. Vineyard Wind revised their initial survey plan such to accommodate these measures and satisfy their permitting and operational obligations. Therefore, NMFS determined that this required mitigation measure is sufficient to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat.

Comment 5: The ENGOs stated that the agency's assumptions regarding mitigation effectiveness are unfounded and cannot be used to justify any reduction in the number of takes authorized as was done for North Atlantic right whales. The ENGOs do not believe that Vineyard Wind can successfully mitigate Level B harassment simply through the implementation of the IHA mitigation measures currently required. The reasons cited include: (1) The agency's reliance on a 160 dB threshold for behavioral harassment that commenters assert is not supported by the best available scientific information; (2) the reliance on the assumption that marine mammals will avoid sound despite studies that have found avoidance behavior is not generalizable among species and contexts; and (3) until the effectiveness of mitigation measures are determined, it is premature to include any related assumptions to reduce the numbers of marine mammal takes.

Response: The three comments provided by the ENGOs are addressed individually below.

(1) NMFS acknowledges that the potential for behavioral response to an anthropogenic source is highly variable and context-specific and acknowledges the potential for Level B harassment at exposures to received levels below 160 dB rms. Alternatively, NMFS acknowledges the potential that not all animals exposed to received levels above 160 dB rms will respond in ways constituting behavioral harassment. There are a variety of studies indicating that contextual variables play a very important role in response to anthropogenic noise, and the severity of effects are not necessarily linear when compared to a received level (RL). The commenters cited several studies (Nowacek et al. 2004, Kastelein et al. 2012 and 2015, Gomez et al. 2016, Tyack & Thomas 2019) that showed there were behavioral responses to sources below the 160 dB threshold, but also acknowledge the importance of context in these responses. For example, Nowacek et al. (2004) reported the behavior of five out of six North Atlantic right whales was disrupted at RLs of only 133-148 dB re 1 µPa (returning to normal behavior within minutes) when exposed to an alert signal. However, the authors also reported that none of the whales responded to noise from transiting vessels or playbacks of ship noise even though the RLs were at least as strong, and contained similar frequencies, to those of the alert signal. The authors state that a possible explanation for why whales responded to the alert signal and did not respond to vessel noise is that the whales may have been habituated to vessel noise, while the alert signal was a novel sound. In addition, the authors noted differences between the characteristics of the vessel noise and alert signal which may also have played a part in the differences in responses to the two noise types. Therefore, it was concluded that the signal itself, as opposed to the RL, was responsible for the response. DeRuiter et al. (2013) also indicate that variability of responses to acoustic stimuli depends not only on the species receiving the sound and the sound source, but also on the social, behavioral, or environmental contexts of exposure. Finally, Gong et al. (2014) highlighted that behavioral responses depend on many contextual factors, including range to source, RL above background noise, novelty of the signal, and differences in behavioral state. Similarly, Kastelein et al. (2015, cited in the letter) examined behavioral responses of a harbor porpoise to sonar signals in a quiet pool, but stated behavioral responses of harbor porpoises at sea would vary with context such as social situation, sound propagation, and background noise levels.

NMFS uses 160 dB (rms) as the exposure level for estimating Level B harassment takes, while acknowledging that the 160 dB rms step-function approach is a simplistic approach. The commenters suggested that our use of the 160-dB threshold implies that we do not recognize the science indicating that animals may react in ways constituting behavioral harassment when exposed to lower received levels (RL). However, we do recognize the potential for Level B harassment at exposures to RLs below 160 dB rms, in addition to the potential that animals exposed to RLs above 160 dB rms will not respond in ways constituting behavioral harassment ( e.g., Malme et al. 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988; McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a, 2000b; Barkaszi et al. 2012; Stone 2015; Gailey et al. 2016; Barkaszi and Kelly 2018). These comments appear to evidence a misconception regarding the concept of the 160-dB threshold. While it is correct that in practice it works as a step-function, i.e., animals exposed to received levels above the threshold are considered to be “taken” and those exposed to levels below the threshold are not, it is in fact intended as a sort of mid-point of likely behavioral responses (which are extremely complex depending on many factors including species, noise source, individual experience, and behavioral context). What this means is that, conceptually, the function recognizes that some animals exposed to levels below the threshold will in fact react in ways that are appropriately considered take, while others that are exposed to levels above the threshold will not. Use of the 160-dB threshold allows for a simplistic quantitative estimate of take, while we can qualitatively address the variation in responses across different received levels in our discussion and analysis.

Overall, we emphasize the lack of scientific consensus regarding what criteria might be more appropriate. Defining sound levels that disrupt behavioral patterns is difficult because responses depend on the context in which the animal receives the sound, including an animal's behavioral mode when it hears sounds ( e.g., feeding, resting, or migrating), prior experience, and biological factors ( e.g., age and sex). Other contextual factors, such as signal characteristics, distance from the source, and signal to noise ratio, may also help determine response to a given received level of sound. Therefore, levels at which responses occur are not necessarily consistent and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al. 2007; Ellison et al. 2012; Bain and Williams 2006). Even experts have not previously been able to suggest specific new criteria due to these difficulties ( e.g., Southall et al. 2007; Gomez et al. 2016). Further, we note that the sounds sources and the equipment used in the specified activities are outside (higher than) of the most sensitive range of mysticete hearing.

There is currently no agreement on these complex issues, and NMFS followed the practice at the time of submission and review of this analysis in assessing the likelihood of disruption of behavioral patterns by using the 160 dB threshold. This threshold has remained in use in part because of the practical need to use a relatively simple threshold based on available information that is both predictable and measurable for most activities. We note that the seminal review presented by Southall et al. (2007) did not suggest any specific new criteria due to lack of convergence in the data. NMFS is currently evaluating available information towards development of guidance for assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammal behavior, such as a dose-response curve presented by Tyack and Thomas (2017) and referenced by the commenters. However, undertaking a process to derive defensible exposure-response relationships is complex ( e.g., NMFS previously attempted such an approach, but is currently re-evaluating the approach based on input collected during peer review of NMFS (2016)). A recent systematic review by Gomez et al. (2016) referenced by the commenters was unable to derive criteria expressing these types of exposure-response relationships based on currently available data.

NMFS acknowledges that there may be methods of assessing likely behavioral response to acoustic stimuli that better capture the variation and context-dependency of those responses than the simple 160 dB step-function used here, and that an approach reflecting a more complex probabilistic function may more effectively represent the known variation in responses at different levels due to differences in the receivers, the context of the exposure, and other factors. However, there is no agreement on what that method should be or how more complicated methods may be implemented by applicants. NMFS is committed to continuing its work in developing updated guidance with regard to acoustic thresholds, but pending additional consideration and process is reliant upon an established threshold that is reasonably reflective of available science.

(2) The commenters disagreed with NMFS' assumption that marine mammals avoid sound sources. The ENGOs claimed that studies have not found avoidance behavior to be generalizable among species and contexts. Importantly, the commenters mistakenly seem to believe that the NMFS' does not consider avoidance as a take, and that the concept of avoidance is used as a mechanism to reduce overall take—this is not the case. Avoidance of loud sounds is a well-documented behavioral response, and NMFS often accordingly accounts for this avoidance by reducing the number of injurious exposures, which would occur in very close proximity to the source and necessitate a longer duration of exposure. However, when Level A harassment takes are reduced in this manner, they are changed to Level B harassment takes, in recognition of the fact that this avoidance or other behavioral responses occurring as a result of these exposures are still take. NMFS does not reduce the overall amount of take as a result of avoidance or rely in any way on assumptions related to avoidance.

(3) The comments stated that it is premature to include any related assumptions to reduce the numbers of marine mammal takes until the effectiveness of mitigation measures are determined. Vineyard Wind's Preliminary Monitoring Report demonstrates that the number of takes did not exceed those authorized based on the mitigation measures implemented in the initial IHA and which are carried over in the Renewal IHA during Vineyard Wind's survey activities. During the reported marine mammal observations, no behavior was observed that would be considered consistent with a behavioral response to harassment ( i.e., rapid swimming away from the sound source or vessel; repeated fin slaps or breaches; notable changes in behavior as a result of vessel approach), and no animals demonstrated signs of harm.

While we acknowledge the commenters' concerns regarding unfounded assumptions concerning the effectiveness of mitigation requirements in reducing actual take of North Atlantic right whales, it is also important to also acknowledge the circumstances of a particular action. In most cases, the maximum estimated Level B harassment zone associated with commonly-used acoustic sources is approximately 195 m, whereas the typically-required shutdown zone for North Atlantic right whales is 500 m. Vineyard Wind reported only four sightings of North Atlantic right whales (seven individuals) in the initial year of survey activities, all of which were observed on a single day (December 20, 2020) and outside both the estimated 195-m Level B harassment zone and the 500-m EZ for North Atlantic right whales (closest approaches were >900 m). It is also important to note that these observations did not all occur during actual use of the source for which this zone is estimated, and that the actual zone at the time of observation could have been smaller. Therefore, for North Atlantic right whales, NMFS expects that required mitigation measures in the Renewal IHA will indeed be effective in reducing actual take below the estimated amount, which typically does not account for the beneficial effects of mitigation.

Comment 6: Oceana suggested that NMFS should fully consider both the use of the area and the effects of both acute and chronic stressors on the health and fitness of North Atlantic right whales. Oceana asserts that chronic stressors are an emerging concern for North Atlantic right whale conservation and recovery and a recent peer-reviewed study suggests that a range of stresses on North Atlantic right whales have stunted growth rates (Stewart et al. 2021). Oceana noted that disruptive site characterization activities may do more than startle or spook North Atlantic right whales in this area and may cause chronic stress to the whales or cause the whales to seek other feeding areas at great energetic cost, decreasing their fitness, body condition and ability to successfully feed, socialize and mate.

Response: NMFS agrees with Oceana that both acute and chronic stressors are of concern for North Atlantic right whale conservation and recovery. We recognize that acute stress from acoustic exposure is one potential impact of these surveys, and that chronic stress can have fitness, reproductive, etc. impacts at the population-level scale. NMFS has carefully reviewed the best available scientific information in assessing impacts to marine mammals, and recognizes that the surveys have the potential to impact marine mammals through behavioral effects, stress responses, and auditory masking. However, NMFS does not expect that the generally short-term, intermittent, and transitory marine site characterization survey activities would create conditions of acute or chronic acoustic exposure leading to long-term physiological stress responses in marine mammals. NMFS has also prescribed a robust suite of mitigation measures, such as time-area limitations and extended distance shutdowns for certain species that are expected to further reduce the duration and intensity of acoustic exposure, while limiting the potential severity of any possible behavioral disruption. The potential for chronic stress was evaluated in making the determinations presented in NMFS's negligible impact analyses.

Comment 7: Oceana asserted that NMFS must fully consider the discrete effects of each activity and the cumulative effects of the suite of approved, proposed and potential activities on marine mammals and North Atlantic right whales in particular and ensure that the cumulative effects are not excessive before issuing or renewing an IHA. They noted that this was specifically important given the large number of offshore wind-related activities being considered in the northeast region.

Response: Neither the MMPA nor NMFS' codified implementing regulations call for consideration of other unrelated activities and their impacts on populations. The preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989) states in response to comments that the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are to be incorporated into the negligible impact analysis via their impacts on the baseline. Consistent with that direction, NMFS has factored into its negligible impact analysis the impacts of other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities via their impacts on the baseline, e.g., as reflected in the density/distribution and status of the species, population size and growth rate, and other relevant stressors. The 1989 implementing regulations also addressed public comments regarding cumulative effects from future, unrelated activities. There NMFS stated that such effects are not considered in making findings under section 101(a)(5) concerning negligible impact. In this case, both this Renewal IHA, as well as other IHAs currently in effect or proposed within the specified geographic region, are appropriately considered an unrelated activity relative to the others. The IHAs are unrelated in the sense that they are discrete actions under section 101(a)(5)(D), issued to discrete applicants.

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires NMFS to make a determination that the take incidental to a “specified activity” will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. NMFS' implementing regulations require applicants to include in their request a detailed description of the specified activity or class of activities that can be expected to result in incidental taking of marine mammals. 50 CFR 216.104(a)(1). Thus, the “specified activity” for which incidental take coverage is being sought under section 101(a)(5)(D) is generally defined and described by the applicant. Here, Vineyard Wind was the applicant for the Renewal IHA, and we are responding to the specified activity as described in that application and request for renewal (and making the necessary findings on that basis). Through the response to public comments in the 1989 implementing regulations, we also indicated (1) that NMFS would consider cumulative effects that are reasonably foreseeable when preparing a NEPA analysis, and (2) that reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects would also be considered under section 7 of the ESA for ESA-listed species. In this case, cumulative impacts have been adequately addressed under NEPA in prior environmental analyses that form the basis for NMFS' determination that this action is appropriately categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis.

NMFS has previously written Environmental Assessments (EA) that addressed cumulative impacts related to substantially similar activities, in similar locations, e.g., 2019 Ørsted EA for survey activities offshore southern New England; 2019 Avangrid EA for survey activities offshore North Carolina and Virginia; 2018 Deepwater Wind EA for survey activities offshore Delaware, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

Separately, cumulative effects were analyzed as required through NMFS' required intra-agency consultation under section 7 of the ESA, which determined that NMFS' action of issuing the IHA or Renewal IHA is not likely to adversely affect listed marine mammals or their critical habitat.

Comment 8: The ENGOs stated that the recent designation of Gulf of Maine humpback whales as a strategic stock should be explicitly considered by NMFS as part of the Renewal IHA.

Response: NMFS acknowledges that the status of the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock changed from non-strategic to strategic in the 2020 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Draft Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report (available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports ) and that we omitted this status change in the Description of Marine Mammals in the Federal Register notice of the proposed Renewal IHA (85 FR 30435, June 08, 2021). We have revised the Federal Register notice of the authorized Renewal IHA to include this change.

NMFS does not expect that the generally short-term, intermittent, and transitory HRG activities and the minor amount of take of humpback whales by Level B harassment (up to 2.1 percent of the population) would have meaningful impacts on the reproduction or survival on any individual humpback whale and, therefore, no impacts at the stock level are expected. Moreover, the population of interest is the West Indies Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of which the Gulf of Maine stock is just one feeding population. Therefore, this information regarding the strategic listing of the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock does not change our initial analysis and determination.

Comment 9: The ENGO's noted that harbor porpoises are particularly sensitive to noise, and, therefore, impacts to this species must be minimized and mitigated to the full extent practicable during offshore wind siting and development activities.

Response: Harbor porpoises are classified as high-frequency cetaceans (NMFS 2018) and are the hearing group with the lowest PTS onset thresholds, with maximum susceptibility to frequencies between 20 and 40 kHz (susceptibility decreases with outside this frequency range). However, the largest modeled distance to the Level A harassment threshold for HF cetaceans was 60 m. Furthermore, this is a conservative assessment given that the model used to determine PTS isopleths treats all devices as impulsive and results in significant overestimates for non-impulsive devices, since PTS onset thresholds are lower for impulsive sources compare to non-impulsive sources. Level A harassment would also be more likely to occur at close approach to the sound source or as a result of longer duration exposure to the sound source, and mitigation measures—including a 100 m exclusion zone (EZ) for harbor porpoises—are expected to minimize the potential for close approach or longer duration exposure to active HRG sources. In addition, harbor porpoises are known to be behaviorally sensitive species, in that they respond to comparatively lower received levels and are known to avoid vessels and other sound sources and, therefore, harbor porpoises would also be expected to avoid a sound source prior to that source reaching a level that would result in injury (Level A harassment). Therefore, NMFS has determined that take of harbor porpoises or any other animal by Level A harassment is unlikely to occur and has not authorized any such takes. Any takes by Level B harassment are anticipated to be limited to brief startling reactions and/or temporary avoidance of the Project Area. Further, appropriate mitigation measures have been included to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on harbor porpoises and other marine mammal species. No harbor porpoises were observed by Vineyard Wind in their initial year of survey activities according to their preliminary monitoring report, further supporting the potential for harassment to be discountable.

Comment 10: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS should prohibit the commencement of geophysical surveys at night to maximize the probability that marine mammals are detected and confirmed clear of the EZs. The commenters asserted that initiation of work should occur with ramp-up, only during daylight hours.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the limitations inherent in detection of marine mammals at night. However, no injury is expected to result even in the absence of mitigation, given the characteristics of the sources planned for use (supported by the very small estimated Level A harassment zones; i.e., <60 m). The ENGOs do not provide any support for the apparent contention that injury is a potential outcome of these activities. Regarding Level B harassment, any potential impacts would be limited to short-term behavioral responses, as described in greater detail herein. The commenters establish that the status of North Atlantic right whales in particular is precarious. NMFS agrees in general with the discussion of this status provided by the commenters. Note that NMFS considers impacts from this category of survey operations to be near de minimis, with the potential for Level A harassment for any species to be discountable and the severity of Level B harassment (and, therefore, the impacts of the take event on the affected individual), if any, to be low. NMFS is also requiring Vineyard Wind to deploy two PSOs during nighttime hours who must have access to night-vision equipment ( i.e., night-vision goggles and/or infrared technology). Given these factors, NMFS does not believe that there is a need for more restrictive mitigation requirements.

Restricting surveys in the manner suggested by the commenters may reduce marine mammal exposures by some degree in the short term, but would not result in any significant reduction in either intensity or duration of noise exposure. Vessels would also potentially be on the water for an extended time introducing noise into the marine environment. The restrictions recommended by the commenters could result in the surveys spending increased time on the water, which may result in greater overall exposure to sound for marine mammals; thus the commenters have not demonstrated that such a requirement would result in a net benefit. Furthermore, restricting the ability of the applicant to begin operations only during daylight hours would have the potential to result in lengthy shutdowns of the survey equipment, which could result in the applicant failing to collect the data they have determined is necessary and, subsequently, the need to conduct additional surveys in the future. This would result in significantly increased costs incurred by the applicant. Thus the restriction suggested by the commenters would not be practicable for the applicant to implement. In consideration of the likely effects of the activity on marine mammals absent mitigation, potential unintended consequences of the measures as proposed by the commenters, and practicability of the recommended measures for the applicant, NMFS has determined that restricting operations as recommended is not warranted or practicable in this case.

Comment 11: Oceana recommended that when HRG surveys are safe to resume after a shutdown event, the surveys should be required to use a soft start, ramp-up procedure to encourage any nearby marine life to leave the area.

Response: NMFS agrees with this recommendation and included in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (85 FR 7952, February 02, 2020), the initial IHA (85 FR 26940, May 05, 2020), the proposed Renewal IHA (85 FR 30435, June 08, 2021) and this final Renewal IHA a stipulation that when technically feasible, survey equipment must be ramped up at the start or restart of survey activities. Ramp-up must begin with the power of the smallest acoustic equipment at its lowest practical power output appropriate for the survey. When technically feasible the power must then be gradually turned up and other acoustic sources added in a way such that the source level would increase gradually.

Comment 12: Based on the assertion that the 160 dB threshold for behavioral harassment is not supported by best available scientific information and grossly underestimates Level B take, the ENGOs recommended that NMFS establish an EZ of 1,000 m around each vessel conducting activities with noise levels that they assert could result in injury or harassment to North Atlantic right whales, and a minimum EZ of 500 m for all other large whale species and strategic stocks of small cetaceans. Oceana also recommended that zones for North Atlantic right whales extend at least 1,000 m, but did not provide reasoning for this zone size. The ENGOs further note that they consider source levels greater than 180 dB re 1 μPa (SPL) at 1-meter at frequencies between 7 Hz and 35 kHz to be potentially harmful to low-frequency cetaceans.

Response: NMFS disagrees with this recommendation and the assertion that the 160 dB threshold for behavioral harassment is not supported by best available scientific information and grossly underestimates take by Level B harassment (see Comment 5 for a discussion regarding why NMFS uses the 160 dB threshold). It is unclear to NMFS how the commenters determined that source levels greater than 180 dB re 1 μPa (SPL) are potentially harmful to low-frequency cetaceans. NMFS historically applied a received level (not source level) root mean square (rms) threshold of 180 dB SPL as the potential for marine mammals to incur PTS ( i.e., Level A (injury) harassment); however, in 2016, NMFS published it Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing which updated the 180 dB SPL Level A harassment threshold. Since that time, NMFS has been applying dual threshold criteria based on both peak and a weighted (to account for marine mammal hearing) cumulative sound exposure level. NMFS released a revised version of the Technical Guidance in 2018. We encourage the ENGOs to review the Technical Guidance available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance to inform future reviews of any proposed IHA on which they may wish to comment. As described in the Estimated Take section, NMFS has established a PTS (Level A harassment) threshold of 183 dB cumulative SEL for low frequency specialists, and a right whale would need to approach within 2 meters of the source to potentially incur PTS from the largest source.

Regarding the shutdown zone recommendation, we note that the 500-m EZ for North Atlantic right whales exceeds the modeled distance to the largest 160-dB Level B harassment isopleth distance (195 m) by a substantial margin. Given that calculated Level B harassment isopleths are likely conservative, and NMFS considers impacts from HRG survey activities to be near de minimis, a 100-m shutdown for other marine mammal species (including large whales and strategic stocks of small cetaceans) is sufficiently protective to effect the least practicable adverse impact on those species and stocks. Further, as discussed in Comment 10, no injury is expected to result even in the absence of mitigation, given the characteristics of the sources planned for use (supported by the very small estimated Level A harassment zones; i.e., <60 m).

Comment 13: Oceana recommended that a shutdown of HRG equipment be required should a North Atlantic right whale or other protected species enter an EZ, unless necessary for human safety. They further recommended that if and when such an exemption occurs the project must immediately notify NMFS with reasons and explanation for exemption and a summary of the frequency of these exceptions must be publicly available to ensure that these are the exception rather than the norm for the project.

Response: There are several shutdown requirements described in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (85 FR 7952, February 02, 2020), the initial IHA (85 FR 26940, May 05, 2020), the proposed Renewal IHA (85 FR 30435, June 08, 2021) and which are included in this final Renewal IHA, including the stipulation that geophysical survey equipment must be immediately shut down if any marine mammal is observed within or entering the relevant EZs while geophysical survey equipment is operational. There is no exemption for human safety and it is unclear what exemption the commenter is referring to. In regards to reporting, Vineyard Wind must notify NMFS if a North Atlantic right whale is observed at any time by any project vessels during surveys or during vessel transit. Additionally, Vineyard Wind is required to report the relevant survey activity information, such as such as the type of survey equipment in operation, acoustic source power output while in operation, and any other notes of significance ( i.e., pre-clearance survey, ramp-up, shutdown, end of operations, etc.) as well as the estimated distance to an animal and its heading relative to the survey vessel at the initial sighting and survey activity information. As documented in Vineyard Wind's preliminary monitoring report for the surveys completed under the initial IHA authorization (available on our website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act ), except for instances of voluntary approaches by delphinids, there were no instances where marine mammals were observed within the required shutdown zone and shutdown procedures were not implemented. If a right whale is detected within the EZ before a shutdown is implemented, the right whale and its distance from the sound source, including whether it is within the Level B or Level A harassment zones, would be reported in Vineyard Wind's final monitoring report and made publically available on our website. Vineyard Wind is required to immediately notify NMFS of any sightings of North Atlantic right whales and report upon survey activity information so that comment is not applicable to this Renewal IHA.

Comment 14: The ENGOs and Oceana recommended that a combination of visual monitoring by PSOs and PAM should be used at all times that survey work is underway in order to monitor exclusion zones and maximize the detection of protected species and stocks. The ENGOs also mentioned that while the previously issued IHA indicated that Vineyard Wind will voluntarily employ PAM to support monitoring at night, there is no reference to PAM in the “Monitoring Measures” section of that document, nor the proposed Renewal IHA and requested that this measure be clarified by NMFS.

Response: The foremost concern expressed by the ENGOs and Oceana in making the recommendation to require use of PAM is with regard to North Atlantic right whales. However, the commenters do not explain why they expect that PAM would be effective in detecting vocalizing mysticetes. It is generally well-accepted fact that, even in the absence of additional acoustic sources, using a towed passive acoustic sensor to detect baleen whales (including right whales) is not typically effective because the noise from the vessel, the flow noise, and the cable noise are in the same frequency band and will mask the vast majority of baleen whale calls. Vessels produce low-frequency noise, primarily through propeller cavitation, with main energy in the 5-300 Hertz (Hz) frequency range. Source levels range from about 140 to 195 decibel (dB) re 1 μPa (micropascal) at 1 m (NRC 2003, Hildebrand 2009), depending on factors such as ship type, load, and speed, and ship hull and propeller design. Studies of vessel noise show that it appears to increase background noise levels in the 71-224 Hz range by 10-13 dB (Hatch et al. 2012, McKenna et al. 2012, Rolland et al. 2012). PAM systems employ hydrophones towed in streamer cables approximately 500 m behind a vessel. Noise from water flow around the cables and from strumming of the cables themselves is also low-frequency and typically masks signals in the same range. Experienced PAM operators participating in a recent workshop (Thode et al. 2017) emphasized that a PAM operation could easily report no acoustic encounters, depending on species present, simply because background noise levels rendered any acoustic detection impossible. The same workshop report stated that a typical eight-element array towed 500 m behind a vessel could be expected to detect delphinids, sperm whales, and beaked whales at the required range, but not baleen whales, due to expected background noise levels (including seismic noise, vessel noise, and flow noise).

There are several additional reasons why we do not agree that use of PAM is warranted for 24-hour HRG surveys such as the one planned by Vineyard Wind. While NMFS agrees that PAM can be an important tool for augmenting detection capabilities in certain circumstances, its utility in further reducing impact for Vineyard Wind's HRG survey activities is limited. First, for this activity, the area expected to be ensonified above the Level B harassment threshold is relatively small (a maximum of 195 m)—this reflects the fact that, to start with, the source level is comparatively low and the intensity of any resulting impacts would be lower level and, further, it means that inasmuch as PAM will only detect a portion of any animals exposed within a zone, the overall probability of PAM detecting an animal in the harassment zone is low—together these factors support the limited value of PAM for use in reducing take with smaller zones. PAM is only capable of detecting animals that are actively vocalizing, while many marine mammal species vocalize infrequently or during certain activities, which means that only a subset of the animals within the range of the PAM would be detected (and potentially have reduced impacts). Additionally, localization and range detection can be challenging under certain scenarios. For example, odontocetes are fast moving and often travel in large or dispersed groups which makes localization difficult.

Given that the effects to marine mammals from the types of surveys authorized in this IHA are expected to be limited to low level behavioral harassment even in the absence of mitigation, the limited additional benefit anticipated by adding this detection method (especially for right whales and other low frequency cetaceans, species for which PAM has limited efficacy), and the cost and impracticability of implementing a full-time PAM program, we have determined the current requirements for visual monitoring are sufficient to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat. However, we note that Vineyard Wind has stated their intention to voluntarily implement PAM during night operations as an added precautionary measure even though this is not a NMFS requirement.

Comment 15: The ENGOs recommended that the passive acoustic monitors for this and future wind development projects should be part of a migratory corridor-wide network of passive acoustic monitors organized by NOAA and BOEM in collaboration with state governments as well as private, academic, and non-profit partners. They also recommended that NMFS should also advance a robust and effective near real-time monitoring and mitigation system for North Atlantic right whales and other endangered and protected species that will be more responsive to the ongoing dynamic species distributional shifts resulting from climate change, as well as provide more flexibility to developers during offshore wind energy development.

Response: NMFS is generally supportive of these concepts. A network of near real-time baleen whale monitoring devices are active or have been tested in portions of New England and Canadian waters. These systems employ various digital acoustic monitoring instruments which have been placed on autonomous platforms including slocum gliders, wave gliders, profiling floats and moored buoys. Systems that have proven to be successful will likely see increased use as operational tools for many whale monitoring and mitigation applications. In 2020, NMFS convened a workshop to address objectives related to monitoring North Atlantic right whales. The NMFS publication by Oleson et al. (2020) titled “Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-64: North Atlantic Right Whale Monitoring and Surveillance: Report and Recommendations of the National Marine Fisheries Service's Expert Working Group”, and available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/north-atlantic-right-whale-monitoring-and-surveillance-report-and-recommendations, summarizes information from the workshop and presents the Expert Working Group's recommendations for a comprehensive monitoring strategy to guide future analyses and data collection. Among the numerous recommendations found in the report, the Expert Working Group encouraged the widespread deployment of auto-buoys to provide near real-time detections of North Atlantic right whale calls that visual survey teams can then respond to for collection of identification photographs or biological samples.

In regards to the current Renewal IHA, NMFS cannot require Vineyard Wind to be a part of such monitoring networks until such a network of monitoring devices is formalized. However, NMFS will consider implementing such measures in the future should such a network be developed.

Comment 16: The ENGOs recommended that Vineyard Wind must employ a minimum of four PSOs following a two-on/two-off rotation, each responsible for scanning no more than 180° of the horizon during both daylight and nighttime hours, while Oceana recommended that all vessels associated with the proposed Vineyard Wind marine site characterization should be required to carry and use PSOs at all times when underway. Both commenters also recommended that infrared equipment should be during daylight hours to maximize the probability of detection of marine mammals. The ENGOs requested that NMFS clarify what visual monitoring measures are required and/or will be employed by Vineyard Wind to monitor the exclusion, buffer, and monitoring zones during daylight hours, poor visibility conditions, and at night.

Response: NMFS typically requires that a single PSO must be stationed at the highest vantage point and engaged in general 360-degree scanning during daylight hours. Although NMFS acknowledges that the single PSO cannot reasonably maintain observation of the entire 360-degree area around the vessel, it is reasonable to assume that the single PSO engaged in continual scanning of such a small area ( i.e., 500-m EZ, which is greater than the maximum 195-m harassment zone) will be successful in detecting marine mammals that are available for detection at the surface. Despite this, Vineyard Wind has committed to a minimum of two NMFS-approved PSOs on duty and conducting visual observations on all survey vessels at all times when HRG survey equipment is in use (i.e., daylight and nighttime operations). NMFS has analyzed the potential for incidental take resulting from Vineyard Wind's activity and have determined that based on the nature of the activities, and in consideration of the mitigation measures included in the initial IHA and the Renewal IHA, the potential for incidental take when HRG activities are not operational is so low as to be discountable.

The monitoring reports submitted to NMFS have demonstrated that PSOs active only during daylight operations are able to detect marine mammals and implement appropriate mitigation measures. Nevertheless, as night vision technology has continued to improve, NMFS has adapted its practice, and two PSOs are required to be on duty at night on source vessels. NMFS included a requirement in the final IHA and the Renewal IHA that night-vision equipment ( i.e., night-vision goggles with thermal clip-ons and infrared/thermal imaging technology) must be available for use. Survey operators are not required to provide PSOs with infrared devices during the day but observers are not prohibited from employing them. Given that use of infrared devices for detecting marine mammals during the day has been shown to be helpful under certain conditions, NMFS will consider requiring them to be made accessible for daytime PSOs. NMFS is also requiring that all PSOs be equipped with reticulated binoculars and have the ability to estimate distances to marine mammals located in proximity to the vessel and/or EZs using range finders based on conditions and visibility to support the sighting and monitoring of marine species. The visual monitoring measures required in the Renewal IHA are identical to those required in the initial IHA and were explained in detail in the associated notices (85 FR 7952, February 02, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 05, 2020). We have determined that the PSO requirements in the IHA are sufficient to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat.

Comment 17: The ENGOs and Oceana both expressed concerns that the proposed Renewal IHA sets no requirement to minimize the impacts of underwater noise through the use of best available technology and other methods to minimize sound levels from geophysical surveys. The ENGOs recommended that NMFS should require Vineyard Wind to select sub-bottom profiling systems for survey activities, and operate those systems at power settings that achieve the lowest practicable source level for the objective. Oceana recommended that to be consistent with the requirement to achieve “the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat,” the IHA must include conditions for the survey activities that will first avoid adverse effects on North Atlantic right whales in and around the survey site and then minimize and mitigate the effects that cannot be avoided. They state that this should include a full assessment of which activities, technologies and strategies are truly necessary to provide information to inform development of Vineyard Wind and which are not critical. If, for example, a lower impact technique or technology will provide necessary information about the site without adverse effects, Oceana recommended that technique or technology should be permitted while other tools with more frequent, intense or long-lasting effects should be prohibited. In general, the ENGOs and Oceana asserted that NMFS must require that all IHA applicants minimize the impacts of underwater noise to the fullest extent feasible, including through the use of best available technology and methods to minimize sound levels from geophysical surveys.

Response: The MMPA requires that an IHA include measures that will effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species and stock and, in practice, NMFS agrees that the IHA should include conditions for the survey activities that will first avoid adverse effects on North Atlantic right whales in and around the survey site, where practicable, and then minimize the effects that cannot be avoided. NMFS has determined that the Renewal IHA meets this requirement to effect the least practicable adverse impact. Oceana does not make any specific recommendations of measures to add to the Renewal IHA other than assessing which technologies and strategies are truly necessary to provide information to inform development of Vineyard Wind. While the ENGOs recommend the use of sub-bottom profiling systems, the Vineyard Wind energy developers selected the equipment necessary during HRG surveys to achieve their objectives (which includes shallow sub-bottom profilers). As part of the analysis for all marine site characterization survey IHAs, NMFS evaluated the effects expected as a result of use of the specified activity ( i.e., the equipment described here), made the necessary findings, and imposed mitigation requirements sufficient to achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species and stocks of marine mammals. It is not within NMFS' purview to make judgments regarding what constitutes the “lowest practicable source level” for an operator's survey objectives or the appropriate techniques or technologies for an operator's survey objectives.

Comment 18: The ENGOs and Oceana both generally recommended that NMFS require all vessels of all sizes associated with the proposed survey activities to speeds less than 10 kn at all times with no exemptions due to the risk of ship strikes to North Atlantic right whales and other large whales. The ENGOs requested clarification regarding whether the requirement that project-related vessels of any size limit speeds to 10 kn or less within active SMAs or DMAs was still applicable to the Renewal IHA as this measure was included in the issued IHA but not restated in the Proposed Renewal IHA. The ENGOs also asserted that NMFS must acknowledge that vessel strikes can result in take by Level A harassment, and that NMFS must explicitly analyze the potential for such take resulting from vessel collisions in its take analysis for Vineyard Wind.

Response: While NMFS acknowledges that vessel strikes can result in Level A harassment or mortality, we have analyzed the potential for ship strike resulting from Vineyard Wind's activity and have determined that based on the nature of the activity and the required mitigation measures specific to ship strike avoidance included in the Renewal IHA, potential for ship strike is so low as to be discountable. These mitigation measures, which were included in the initial IHA, summarized in the Proposed Renewal IHA, and are likewise required in the Renewal IHA, include: A requirement that all vessel operators reduce vessel speed to 10 kn (18.5 km/hour) or less when any large whale, any mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of non-delphinoid cetaceans are observed within 100 m of an underway vessel; a requirement that all survey vessels maintain a separation distance of 500-m or greater from any sighted North Atlantic right whale while underway; a requirement that, if underway, vessels must steer a course away from any sighted North Atlantic right whale at 10 kn or less until the 500-m minimum separation distance has been established; a requirement that, if a North Atlantic right whale is sighted in a vessel's path, or within 500 m of an underway vessel, the underway vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral; a requirement that all vessels underway must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from any sighted non-delphinoid species; and a requirement that all vessels underway must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible ( e.g., for animals that approach the vessel). For clarification, the requirement that all vessel operators comply with 10 kn (18.5 km/hour) or less speed restrictions in any SMA or DMA while underway is also still a required mitigation measure and applicable to the Renewal IHA. We have determined that the ship strike avoidance measures in the Renewal IHA are sufficient to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat. We note that no documented vessel strikes have occurred for any marine site characterization surveys which were issued IHAs from NMFS during the survey activities themselves, or while transiting to and from project sites.

Comment 19: Oceana commented that the IHA must include requirements for all vessels to maintain a separation distance of at least 500 m from North Atlantic right whales at all times.

Response: NMFS agrees with Oceana and has stipulated in both the Federal Register notice of proposed Renewal IHA (85 FR 30435, June 08, 2021) and this Renewal IHA that survey vessels must maintain a separation distance of 500 m or greater from any sighted North Atlantic right whale. Further, if a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a species other than a right whale, NMFS requires that the vessel operator must assume that it is a right whale and maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m.

Comment 20: Oceana recommended that the Renewal IHA should require all vessels to be equipped with and using Class A Automatic Identification System (AIS) devices at all times while on the water in order to support oversight and enforcement of the conditions of the HRG survey. Oceana suggested this requirement should apply to all vessels, regardless of size, associated with the project.

Response: NMFS is generally supportive of the idea that vessels involved with survey activities be equipped with and using Class A Automatic Identification System (devices) at all times while on the water. Indeed, there is a precedent for NMFS requiring such a stipulation for geophysical surveys in the Atlantic Ocean (38 FR 63268, December 7, 2018); however, these activities were much louder than the marine site characterization surveys to be carried out by Vineyard Wind and resulted in the potential for both Level A and Level B harassment take. Given the small isopleths and small numbers of take authorized by this IHA, NMFS does not agree that the benefits of requiring AIS on all vessels associated with the survey activities outweighs and warrants the cost and impracticability of this requirement to Vineyard Wind.

Comment 21: Oceana asserted that the IHA must include requirements to specify and require all vessels associated with the project, at all phases of development, follow the vessel plan and rules including vessels owned by the developer, contractors, employees, and others regardless of ownership, operator, contract. They noted that exceptions and exemptions will create enforcement uncertainty and incentives to evade regulations through reclassification and redesignation. They recommended that NMFS can simplify this by requiring all vessels to abide by the same requirements, regardless of size, ownership, function, contract or other specifics. They also recommended that the IHA must also include a condition to specify that developers are explicitly liable for behavior of all employees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and associated vessels and machinery.

Response: NMFS agrees with Oceana and required these measures in the initial IHA and the Renewal IHA. The IHA requires that a copy of the IHA must be in the possession of Vineyard Wind, the vessel operators, the lead PSO, and any other relevant designees of Vineyard Wind operating under the authority of this IHA. The IHA also states that Vineyard Wind must ensure that the vessel operators and other relevant vessel personnel are briefed on all responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocols, operational procedures, and IHA requirements prior to the start of survey activity, and when relevant new personnel join the survey operations. Further the IHA includes a measure that states that the IHA may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed in the IHA, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.

Comment 22: Oceana stated that the IHA must include a requirement for all phases of the Vineyard Wind site characterization to subscribe to the highest level of transparency, including frequent reporting to Federal agencies, requirements to report all visual and acoustic detections of North Atlantic right whales and any dead, injured, or entangled marine mammals to the Fisheries Service or the Coast Guard as soon as possible and no later than the end of the Protected Species Observer shift. To foster stakeholder relationships and allow public engagement and oversight of the permitting, the IHA should require all reports and data to be accessible on a publicly available website.

Response: NMFS agrees with the need for reporting and indeed, the MMPA calls for IHAs to incorporate reporting requirements. As included in the initial IHA and the proposed Renewal IHA, the Renewal IHA includes requirements for reporting that supports Oceana's recommendations. Vineyard Wind is required to submit a monitoring report to NMFS within 90 days after completion of survey activities that fully documents the methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data recorded during both visual and passive acoustic monitoring, estimates the number of marine mammals that may have been taken during survey activities, and describes, assesses and compares the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures. PSO datasheets or raw sightings data must also be provided with the draft and final monitoring report. Further the Renewal IHA stipulates that if a North Atlantic right whale is observed at any time by any project vessels, during surveys or during vessel transit, Vineyard Wind must immediately report sighting information to the NMFS North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System and to the U.S. Coast Guard, and that any discoveries of injured or dead marine mammals be reported by Vineyard Wind to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and to the New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. All reports and associated data submitted to NMFS are included on the project website for public inspection.

Comment 23: The ENGOs objected to NMFS' process to consider extending any one-year IHA with a truncated 15-day comment period as contrary to the MMPA.

Response: NMFS' IHA renewal process meets all statutory requirements. In prior responses to comments about Renewal IHAs ( e.g., 84 FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR 53342, August 28, 2020), NMFS has explained how the renewal process, as implemented, is consistent with the statutory requirements contained in section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, provides additional efficiencies beyond the use of abbreviated notices, and, further, promotes NMFS' goals of improving conservation of marine mammals and increasing efficiency in the MMPA compliance process. Therefore, we intend to continue implementing the renewal process.

All IHAs issued, whether an initial IHA or a Renewal IHA, are valid for a period of not more than one year, and the public has at least 30 days to comment on all proposed IHAs, with a cumulative total of 45 days for Renewal IHAs. As noted above, the Request for Public Comments section made clear that the agency was seeking comment on both the proposed IHA and the potential issuance of a renewal for this project. Because any Renewal IHA (as explained in the Request for Public Comments section) is limited to another year of identical or nearly identical activities in the same location (as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section) or the same activities that were not completed within the one-year period of the initial IHA, reviewers have the information needed to effectively comment on both the immediate proposed IHA and a possible one-year Renewal IHA, should the IHA holder choose to request one.

While there are additional documents submitted with a renewal request, for a qualifying Renewal IHA these will be limited to, as they were in this case, documentation that NMFS will make available and use to verify that the activities are identical to those in the initial IHA, are nearly identical such that the changes would have either no effect on impacts to marine mammals or decrease those impacts, or are a subset of activities already analyzed and authorized but not completed under the initial IHA. NMFS also confirms, as it did for Vineyard Wind's renewal request, among other things, that the activities will occur in the same location; involve the same species and stocks; provide for continuation of the same mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements; and that no new information has been received that would alter the prior analysis. The renewal request also contains a preliminary monitoring report, but that is to verify that effects from the activities do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed. The additional 15-day public comment period provided the public an opportunity to review these few documents, provide any additional pertinent information and comment on whether they think the criteria for a Renewal IHA have been met. Between the initial 30-day comment period on these same activities and the additional 15 days, the total comment period for a Renewal IHA is 45 days.

In addition to the Renewal IHA process being consistent with all requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D), it is also consistent with Congress' intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent reflected in statements in the legislative history of the MMPA. Through the provision for Renewal IHAs in the regulations, description of the process and express invitation to comment on specific potential Renewal IHAs in the Request for Public Comments section of each proposed IHA, the description of the process on NMFS' website, further elaboration on the process through responses to comments such as these, posting of substantive documents on the agency's website, and provision of 30 or 45 days for public review and comment on all proposed IHAs and Renewal IHAs respectively, NMFS has ensured that the public “is invited and encouraged to participate fully in the agency decision-making process.”

The survey activities to be carried out by Vineyard Wind are identical to (and a subset of) those analyzed in the initial IHA, as are the method of taking and the effects of the action. The mitigation measures and monitoring and reporting requirements as described above are also identical to the initial IHA. The planned number of days of activity will be reduced given the completion of a portion of the originally planned work. Therefore, the amount of take authorized is equal to or less than that authorized in the initial IHA. The potential effect of Vineyard Winds' activities remains limited to Level B harassment in the form of behavioral disturbance. In analyzing the effects of the activities in the initial IHA, NMFS determined that Vineyard Wind's activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks and that the authorized take numbers of each species or stock were small relative to the relevant stocks ( e.g., less than one-third of the abundance of all stocks).

NMFS has concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. This includes consideration of the estimated abundances of four stocks (North Atlantic right whales, humpback whales, fin whales, and minke whales) decreasing and the estimated abundances of one stock (common dolphins) increasing (Hayes et al. 2020, Pace 2021) since the issuance of the initial IHA. This also includes consideration of Vineyard Wind's preliminary monitoring report, increased density estimates for North Atlantic right whales based on updated model outputs from Roberts et al. (2020) as described above in the Estimated Take section, the information supporting the assessment that the Project Area includes areas that are important year-round habitats for North Atlantic right whales, and the recent designation of Gulf of Maine humpback whales as a strategic stock. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) Vineyard Wind's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our authorized action with respect to environmental consequences on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the Renewal IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

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

The NMFS Office of Protected Resources is authorizing the incidental take of four species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA: The North Atlantic right, fin, sei and sperm whale. On April 10, 2013, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) issued a programmatic Biological Opinion for BOEM Lease and Site Assessment Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas determining site assessment surveys were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of North Atlantic these listed species. NMFS requested initiation of consultation under Section 7 of the ESA with NMFS GARFO on February 12, 2020, for issuance of the initial IHA to Vineyard Wind. On April 16, 2020 GARFO issued an amended incidental take statement associated with the 2013 Biological Opinion and determined that the issuance of the initial IHA was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of North Atlantic right, fin, sei and sperm whales. On May 12, 2021, NMFS GARFO determined that their initial consultation remains valid for the Renewal IHA and that the Renewal IHA provides no new information about the effects of the action, nor does it change the extent of effects of the action, or any other basis to require reinitiation of the opinion.

NMFS has issued a Renewal IHA to Vineyard Wind for the take of marine mammals incidental to conducting marine site characterization survey activities off the coast of Massachusetts in the areas of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 0522) and along potential submarine cable routes to landfall locations in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. This Renewal IHA is effective from July 15, 2021 through June 20, 2022.

Advance registration is required for the webinar at: https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/5627376790601178124. The agenda, speakers and time are subject to change, please refer to the website for the most updated information. The HSRP meeting agenda, draft meeting documents, presentations, and background materials are posted and updated online and can be downloaded prior to the meeting at: https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsrp/hsrp.html and https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsrp/meetings.html. Past HSRP recommendation letters, issue and position papers are located online at: https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsrp/recommendations.html.

Public comments are encouraged and requested on the navigation services portfolio for CO-OPS, NGS and OCS. Advance written statements will be shared with the HSRP members and will be included in the meeting public record. Due to the condensed nature of the meeting, each individual or group providing written public comments will be limited to one comment per public comment period with no repetition of previous comments. Comments can also be submitted in writing during the public comment period through the webinar. Comments will be read into the record, transcribed, and become part of the meeting record. Due to time meeting constraints, all comments may not be addressed during the meeting.

The Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP) is a Federal Advisory Committee established to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, the NOAA Administrator, on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 303 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, as amended, and such other appropriate matters that the Under Secretary refers to the Panel for review and advice.

The panel is convening on issues relevant to NOAA's navigation services, including offshore wind energy and data sharing for ocean mapping and technology to address ocean mapping in 40 meters and shallower. HSRP regularly discusses stakeholder use of navigation data, products and services, and other topics related to hydrographic surveys, nautical charting, coastal shoreline and ocean mapping, the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) modernization efforts, navigation services contributions to resilience and coastal data and information systems to support planning for resilience to climate change, contributions to the blue economy, coastal and ocean modeling, PORTS® (Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System) sensor enhancements and expansion, Precision Marine Navigation, Electronic Navigation Charts and the sunset of RASTER charts, the scientific mapping and technology research projects of the cooperative agreements between NOAA and partners at the University of New Hampshire and the University of Southern Florida, and other topics. The meeting will include an update on the plans to address and implement two ocean and coastal mapping strategies—the Alaska Coastal Mapping Strategy (ACMS) and the “Establishing a National Strategy for Mapping, Exploring, and Characterizing the U.S. EEZ” (NOMEC), including the Standard Ocean Mapping Protocol (SOMP). Navigation services include the data, products, and services provided by the NOAA programs and activities that undertake geodetic observations, gravity modeling, coastal and shoreline mapping, bathymetric mapping and modeling, hydrographic surveying, nautical charting, tide and water level observations, current observations, flooding, resilience, inundation and sea level rise, marine and coastal modeling, geospatial and LIDAR data, and related data and topics. This suite of NOAA products and services support safe and efficient navigation, resilient coasts and communities, and the nationwide positioning information infrastructure to support America's climate needs and commerce. The Panel will hear about the missions and uses of NOAA's navigation services, the value these services bring, and what improvements could be made. Other matters may be considered.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities and there will be sign language interpretation and captioning services. Please direct requests for other auxiliary aids to Melanie.Colantuno@noaa.gov at least 10 business days in advance of the meeting.

Section 5(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2054(a), requires the CPSC to collect information related to the causes and prevention of death, injury, and illness associated with consumer products. That section also requires the CPSC to conduct continuing studies and investigations of deaths, injuries, diseases, other health impairments, and economic losses resulting from accidents involving consumer products.

The CPSC obtains information about product-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses from a variety of sources, including newspapers, death certificates, consumer complaints, and medical facilities. In addition, the CPSC receives information through its internet website through forms reporting on product-related injuries or incidents. The CPSC also operates the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), which provides statistical data on consumer product-related injuries treated in hospital emergency departments in the United States. The CPSC also uses the NEISS system to collect information on childhood poisonings, in accordance with the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970.

From these sources, CPSC staff selects cases of interest for further investigation, by contacting persons who witnessed or were injured in incidents involving consumer products. These investigations are conducted on-site (face-to-face), by telephone, or by the internet. On-site investigations are usually made in cases where CPSC staff needs photographs of the incident site, the product involved, or detailed information about the incident. This information can come from face-to-face interviews with persons who were injured or who witnessed the incident, as well as via contact with state and local officials, including police, coroners, and fire investigators, and others with knowledge of the incident.

Through interagency agreements, the CPSC also uses the NEISS system to collect information on injuries for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the NEISS All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP). The NEISS-AIP is a sub-sample of approximately two-thirds of the full NEISS sample. In addition to the standard data variables collected on all NEISS injuries, the NEISS-AIP collects variables on several studies for CDC (Firearm-Related Injuries, Adverse Drug Events, Assaults, Self-Inflicted Violence, and Work-Related Injuries) and one study on non-crash, motor vehicle-related injuries for the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The current NEISS probability sample was drawn and recruited in 1995-1996, and implemented in 1997. The current NEISS sample consists of 96 hospital emergency departments grouped into four strata, based on size, as measured by the annual number of emergency department (ED) visits, and a fifth stratum for children's hospitals. When a hospital stops participating in the NEISS, staff recruits a hospital of similar size and geographic location as a replacement. If a participating hospital closes, it is not replaced, because its closure is presumed to represent other hospitals that have closed nationally. As of January 1, 2021, there are currently 81 hospitals participating in the NEISS.

In September 2019, CPSC contracted with Westat, Inc., under CPSC contract 61320619F0134, to give the agency an independent statistical assessment of the NEISS and the NEISS-AIP samples. 1 The primary focus of this contract was to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of keeping, expanding, or resampling the current samples of NEISS and NEISS-AIP hospitals. Westat recommended that CPSC redesign the NEISS sample, and, consistent with that recommendation, CPSC is revising its sampling methodology.

In the redesigned NEISS sample, CPSC staff uses a resampling method that maximizes the probability of retaining as many of the current NEISS hospitals as possible, while maintaining the statistical integrity of the NEISS. Among eligible hospital emergency departments, some have migrated from one stratum to another; others have come into existence since the last resampling of the NEISS, or ceased to exist. The method used in resampling the NEISS is an extension of the Keyfitz procedures for stratified simple random samples. 2 Staff identified several advantages of retaining as many of the current NEISS hospitals as possible, including: (1) The contracting, data collection, and quality-control mechanisms already exist in the hospitals in the current sample; (2) it is a cost-effective procedure; and (3) there is less disruption in trend analysis. The new NEISS sample will contain a mixture of current NEISS hospitals, along with new hospitals recruited to join the NEISS, as follows:

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Ordinary High Water Mark Field Identification Datasheet; OMB Control Number 0710-XXXX.

Needs and Uses: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, through its Regulatory Program, regulates certain activities in waters of the United States. Waters of the United States are defined under 33 CFR part 328. In order for the Corps to determine the amount and extent of waters of the United States at a site, aquatic resources must be geographically delineated in accordance with established Regulatory regulations, policy, and guidance. Non-tidal, non-wetland waters of the United States, which are defined in 33 CFR part 328, must be delineated to the extent of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(7). The OHWM defines the lateral extent of non-tidal aquatic features in the absence of adjacent wetlands in the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) has drafted the first national manual that provides and describes indicators and a methodology which will help improve consistency in the identification and delineation of the OHWM by (1) providing consistent definitions of OHWM indicators; (2) outlining a clear, step-by-step process for identifying the OHWM using a Weight-of-Evidence approach; and (3) providing a datasheet for logging information at a site. Information collected on OHWM datasheets help inform the lateral limits of the Corps' jurisdiction in non-tidal, non-wetland aquatic resources ( e.g., streams or rivers). This information can then be used to inform jurisdictional determinations or permit evaluations. Applicants for Corps permits are generally required to submit delineations of aquatic resources as part of their permit application or in support of the permit evaluation process. The OHWM form will provide applicants with a tool to easily document and submit this information in a consistent format.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 7500.17.

Number of Respondents: 45,001.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 45,001.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Frequency: As Required.

The OHWM is identified through physical characteristics that correspond to a break in bank slope, transition in vegetation type and coverage, and changes in sediment characteristics. As such, the datasheet organizes OHWM indicators into four categories: Geomorphic indicators, vegetation indicators, sediment indicators, and ancillary indicators. Recognizing that streams are highly complex systems, space is provided to include additional indicators that may be particular to certain regions or channel types. The datasheet and field procedure guide users through the step-by-step process of identifying and documenting the OHWM in a more consistent, reliable, and repeatable manner. The OHWM form organizes the information into a logical and consistent format, and makes use of checkboxes and data entry prompts to ensure all of the necessary information to document the OHWM is provided as necessary in a manner that minimizes data entry for respondents.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Army Survivor Advisory Working Group Application; OMB Control Number 0702-0144.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 20.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 20.

Average Burden per Response: 2 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 40.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to assess individuals who apply to become new members of the Army's Survivor Advisory Working Group (SAWG). SAWG advisors may provide advice and recommendations regarding vital Total Army (Active Component, Army National Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve) Survivor quality of life issues. Advisors assess how current Survivor programs and initiatives may affect the Survivor community. SAWG members are required to meet biannually for a four-day period. Additionally, members hold monthly phone calls discussion on SAWG issues.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: Annually.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness Application; DD Form 2789; OMB Control Number 0730-0009.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 4,500.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 4,500.

Average Burden per Response: 1.33 hours on average.

Annual Burden Hours: 6,000.

Needs and Uses: The information collected on this form will be used by the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) to determine whether there is indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith, and whether it is in the best interest of the United States to forgive the debt. It will also be used to determine if a debtor should have been reasonably aware of the overpayment when it occurred. If a request for waiver is denied, the debt collection office (DCO) (usually the payroll office) will continue or resume collection if collection action was previously suspended. If a request for waiver is approved, then the DCO must cancel any outstanding portion of the debt and refund any portion of the debt that may have been collected prior to waiver approval.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: DoD Cyber Scholarship Program; OMB Control Number 0704-0486.

Needs and Uses: DoD Cyber Scholarship Program (CySP), authorized by 10 U.S.C. 2200 is designed to: Increase the number of new entrants to DoD who possess key Information Assurance (IA) and Information Technology (IT) skill sets; and serve as a tool to develop and retain well-educated military and civilian personnel who support the Department's critical IT management and infrastructure protection functions. The DoD CySP recruitment track is for college students who, upon completion of the program, will work for the DoD. Pending availability of funds, the DoD CySP may also award capacity-building grants to colleges and universities designated as National Centers of Academic Excellence in Cybersecurity, (NCAE-Cs) for such purposes as developing cyber curricula and faculty, and building cyber laboratories. The recruitment track and institutional capacity-building grant programs both require a competitive application process. Recruitment scholarship applicants submit written documentation detailing their credentials. NCAE-Cs interested in applying for capacity-building grants must complete and submit a written proposal, and all NCAE-Cs receiving grants must provide documentation detailing the use of grant funding and the outcomes of the capacity-building initiative. DoD requires this information collection to measure the performance of the capacity-building components of the DoD CySP. DoD uses the information collected in the scholarship application process to assess the quality of applicants selected for inclusion in the DoD CySP. Without this written documentation detailing scholarship applicants' credentials, grant proposals, and grant execution accomplishments, the DoD has no means of judging the quality of applicants to the program or collecting information regarding program performance.

Affected Public: Individuals or households (Student Applicants); Not-for-profit Institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government; Businesses or other for-profit (Academic Institutions).

Annual Burden Hours: 5,810.

Number of Respondents: 690.

Responses per Respondent : 1.

Annual Responses : 690.

Average Burden per Response: 8.42 hours.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Defense Information System for Security; OMB Control Number 0704-0573.

Type of Request: Revision.

Number of Respondents: 45,377.

Responses per Respondent: 45.

Annual Responses: 2,041,965.

Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 680,655.

Needs and Uses: This information collection is necessary as the Defense Information System for Security (DISS) system requires personal data collection to facilitate the initiation, investigation and adjudication of information relevant to DoD security clearances and employment suitability determinations for active duty military, civilian employees and contractors requiring such credentials. The respondents for this information collection are 45,377 Facility Security Officers (FSOs) working in industry companies, who are responsible for the regular servicing and updating of the DISS records of individuals with an industry person category. The specific purpose of this information collection is for FSOs to update the DISS records of contractor personnel within their company and Security Management Office (SMO) to facilitate DoD Adjudicators and Security Managers obtaining accurate up-to-date eligibility and access information on contractor personnel. FSO respondents electronically collect, update, and complete the collection directly into the DISS application.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Services; DD Form 2088; OMB Control Number 0704-0190.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 150.

Responses per Respondent: 10.

Annual Responses: 1500.

Average Burden per Response: 45 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 1,125 hours.

Needs and Uses: This information collection is needed to ensure that religious faith groups are appropriately organized and authorized by their constituencies to endorse clergy for service as chaplains in the Military Services. It also certifies the number of years of professional experience for each candidate.

DD Form 2088, “Statement of Ecclesiastical Endorsement,” is used to endorse that a Religious Ministry Professional is professionally qualified to become a chaplain. It requests information about name, address, professional experience, and previous military experience to be used in determining grade, date of rank, and eligibility for promotion for appointees to the chaplaincies of the armed forces.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

The Contract Employees Vetting and Arming Authorization system of records maintains USCENTCOM's registration, investigation, and verification of contract employees to work for the command in the theater of operations. The system also maintains the records of authorization for these employees to carry firearms and ammunition in this hostile threat area. This system of records will cover these records maintained in USCENTCOM IT systems, and any paper records that may be associated with it. This includes records maintained in the Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS), which registers and investigates contractors to verify their personal information and evaluates them for trustworthiness to work with DoD military and civilian employees and to access military installations located in the USCENTCOM Area of Operations.

DoD SORNs have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division website at https://dpcld.defense.gov/privacy.

Under the Privacy Act, a “system of records” is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined as a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, DoD has provided a report of this system of records to the OMB and to Congress.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Military Base Reuse Status; DD Form 2740; OMB Control Number 0790-0003.

Needs and Uses: Through the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation (OLDCC), Department of Defense (DoD) funds are provided to communities for economic adjustment planning in response to closures and realignments of military installations. A measure of program evaluation is the monitoring of civilian job creation, and the type of redevelopment at former military installations. The respondents to the annual survey will generally be a single point of contact at the local level that is responsible for overseeing the base redevelopment effort. If this data is not collected, OLDCC will have no accurate, timely information regarding the civilian reuse of former military bases. As the administrator of the Defense Economic Adjustment Program, OLDCC has a responsibility to encourage private sector use of lands and buildings to generate jobs as military activity diminishes, and to serve as a clearinghouse for reuse data.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Annual Burden Hours: 100.

Number of Respondents: 100.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 100.

Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency: Annually.

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense and the Designated Federal Officer, the Department of Defense Board of Actuaries was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its July 30, 2021 meeting. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for the Board to review DoD actuarial methods and assumptions to be used in the valuations of the Military Retirement Fund, the Voluntary Separation Incentive Fund, and the Education Benefits Fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 183, Section 2006, Chapter 74 (10 U.S.C. 1464 et. seq), and Section 1175 of Title 10, U.S.C.

Agenda: Discussion includes the Military Retirement Fund/VSI Fund ((1) Recent and Proposed Legislation; (2) Briefing on Investment Experience; (3) September 30, 2020, Valuation of the Military Retirement Fund*; (4) Proposed Methods and Assumptions for September 30, 2021, Valuation of the Military Retirement Fund*; and (5) Proposed Methods and Assumptions for September 30, 2020, VSI Fund Valuation.*) and the Education Benefits Fund ((1) Fund Overview; (2) Briefing on Investment Experience (3) September 30, 2020, Valuation Proposed Economic Assumptions*; (4) September 30, 2020, Valuation Proposed Methods and Assumptions—Reserve Programs*; (5) September 30, 2020, Valuation Proposed Methods and Assumptions—Active Duty Programs*; and (6) Developments in Education Benefits. For * items, Board approval is required. Registered participants may obtain the most recent public agenda and other documentation by emailing the points of contact in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or on the Board's website.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140, this meeting is open to the public. Written Statements: In accordance with Section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration at any time, but should be received at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Board for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written statements should be submitted via email to Kathleen Ludwig at Kathleen.A.Ludwig.civ@mail.mil, by July 23, 2021, in either Adobe or Microsoft Word format. Please note that since the Board operates under the provisions of the FACA, as amended, all submitted comments and public presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including, but not limited to, being posted on the board website.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Purpose of the Consent Order Committee (COC): It is the mission of the COC to review the Consent Order, evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, and make recommendation as to how to improve the Consent Order. It is also within the mission of this committee to review and ensure implementation of NNMCAB Recommendation 2019-02, Improving the Utility of the Consent Order with Supplementary Information. The COC will work with the NNMCAB Risk Evaluation and Management Committee to review the risk-based approaches used to determine the prioritization of cleanup actions, as well as the “relative risk ranking” of the campaigns, targets, and milestones by the NNMCAB, to be recommended for use by the DOE EM Los Alamos Field Office (EM-LA) both within and outside of those activities covered by the Consent Order.

Purpose of the Risk Evaluation and Management Committee (REMC): The REMC provides external citizen-based oversight and recommendations to the DOE EM-LA on human and ecological health risk resulting from historical, current, and future hazardous and radioactive legacy waste operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The REMC will, to the extent feasible, stay informed of DOE EM-LA and LANL's environmental restoration and long-term environmental stewardship programs and plans. The REMC will also work with the NNMCAB COC to provide DOE EM-LA and LANL with the public's desires in determining cleanup priorities. The REMC will prepare recommendations that represent to the best of committee's knowledge and ability to determine, the public's position on human and ecological health risk issues pertaining to direct radiation or contaminant exposure to soils, air, surface and groundwater quality, or the agricultural and ecological environment.

Public Participation: The online virtual meeting is open to the public. To sign up for public comment, please contact Menice Santistevan by email, Menice.Santistevan@em.doe.gov , no later than 5:00 p.m. MT on Monday, August 16, 2021. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or within five days after the meeting by sending them to Menice Santistevan at the aforementioned email address. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the internet at: http://energy.gov/em/nnmcab/meeting-materials.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1905-0209;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Densified Biomass Fuel Report;

(3) Type of Request: Three-year extension without changes;

(4) Purpose: Form EIA-63C is part of EIA's comprehensive energy data program. The survey collects information on the manufacture, shipment, exports, energy characteristics, and sales of pellet fuels and other densified biomass fuel products data from facilities that manufacture densified biomass fuel products, primarily pellet fuels, for energy applications. The data collected on Form EIA-63C are a primary source of information for the nation's growing production of biomass products for heating and electric power generation, and for use in both domestic and foreign markets.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 106;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 1,041;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1,433;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: The cost of the burden hours is estimated to be $117,004 (1,433 burden hours times $81.65 per hour). EIA estimates that respondents will have no additional costs associated with the surveys other than the burden hours and the maintenance of the information during the normal course of business.

Statutory Authority: 15 U.S.C. 772(b), 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1905-0186;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Generic Clearance for Questionnaire Testing, Evaluation, and Research;

(3) Type of Request: Three-year extension with changes;

(4) Purpose: The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is requesting a three-year approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to utilize qualitative and quantitative methodologies to pretest questionnaires and validate the quality of the data that is collected on EIA and DOE survey forms. Through the use of these methodologies, EIA will conduct research studies to improve the quality of energy data being collected, reduce or minimize survey respondent burden, and increase agency efficiency. This authority would also allow EIA to improve data collection in order to meet the needs of EIA's customers while also staying current in the evolving nature of the energy industry.

The specific methods proposed for the coverage by this clearance are described below. Also outlined is the legal authority for these voluntary information gathering activities.

The following methods are proposed:

Pilot Surveys. Pilot surveys conducted under this clearance will generally be methodological studies, and will always employ statistically representative samples. The pilot surveys will replicate all components of the methodological design, sampling procedures (where possible), and questionnaires of the full scale survey. Pilot surveys will normally be utilized when EIA undertakes a complete redesign of a particular data collection methodology or when EIA undertakes data collection in new energy areas, such as HGL production, alternative fueled motor vehicles, and other emerging areas of the energy sector where data collection would provide utility to EIA.

Cognitive Interviews. Cognitive interviews are typically one-on-one interviews in which the respondent is usually asked to “think aloud” or is asked “retrospective questions” as he or she answers questions, reads survey materials, defines terminology, or completes other activities as part of a typical survey process. A number of different techniques may be involved including, asking respondents what specific words or phrases mean or asking respondents probing questions to determine how they estimate, calculate, or determine specific data elements on a survey. The objectives of these cognitive interviews are to identify problems of ambiguity or misunderstanding, examine the process that respondents follow for reporting information, assess survey respondents' ability to report new information, or identify other difficulties respondents have answering survey questions in order to reduce measurement error from estimates based on a survey.

Respondent Debriefings. Respondent debriefings conducted under this clearance will generally be methodological or cognitive research studies. The debriefing form is administered after a respondent completes a questionnaire either in paper format, electronically, or through in-person interviews. The debriefings contain probing questions to determine how respondents interpret the survey questions, how much time and effort was spent completing the questionnaire, and whether they have problems in completing the survey/questionnaire. Respondent debriefings also are useful in determining potential issues with data quality and in estimating respondent burden.

Usability Testing. Usability tests are similar to cognitive interviews in which a respondent is typically asked to “think aloud” or asked “retrospective questions” as he or she reviews an electronic questionnaire, website, visual aid, or hard copy survey form. The objective of usability testing is to check that respondents can easily and intuitively navigate electronic survey collection programs, websites, and other survey instruments to submit their data to EIA.

Focus Groups. Focus groups, in person, online, or by phone, involve group sessions guided by a moderator who follows a topic guide containing questions or subjects focused on a particular issue rather than adhering to a standardized cognitive interview protocol. Focus groups are useful for exploring issues concerning the design of a form and the meaning of terms from a specific group of respondents, data users, or other stakeholders of EIA data. Focus groups may also be used to explore respondents' general opinions about data collection technologies or survey materials other than questionnaires.

(4a) Proposed Changes to Information Collection:

EIA proposes to add several other methodologies or techniques to improve survey design, pretest questionnaires and validate the quality of the data that is collected on EIA and DOE survey forms.

Field Techniques. Field techniques described in survey research and survey methodology literature will be employed as appropriate. These include follow-up probing, memory cue tasks, paraphrasing, confidence rating, response latency measurements, free and dimensional sort classification tasks, and vignette classifications. The objective of all of these techniques is to aid in the development of surveys that work with respondents' thought processes, thus reducing response error and burden. These techniques have also proven useful for studying and revising pre-existing questionnaires.

Behavior Coding. Behavior coding is a quantitative technique in which a standard set of codes is systematically applied to respondent/interviewer interactions in interviewer-administered surveys or respondent/questionnaire interactions in self-administered surveys. The advantage of this technique is that it can identify and quantify problems with the wording or ordering of questions, but the disadvantage is that it does not necessarily illuminate the underlying causes.

Split Panel Test. Split panel tests refer to controlled experimental testing of alternative hypotheses. Thus, they allow one to choose from among competing questions, questionnaires, definitions, error messages or survey improvement methodologies with greater confidence than any of the other methods. Split panel tests conducted during the fielding of the survey are superior in that they can support both internal validity (controlled comparisons of the variable(s) under investigation) and external validity (represent the population under study). Most of the previously mentioned survey improvement methods can be strengthened when teamed with this method.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,800;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 1,800;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 2,200;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $179,630 (2,200 annual burden hours multiplied by $81.65 per hour). EIA estimates that respondents will have no additional costs associated with the surveys other than the burden hours and the maintenance of the information during the normal course of business.

Comments are invited on whether or not: (a) The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (b) EIA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, is accurate; (c) EIA can improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it will collect; and (d) EIA can minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, such as automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Statutory Authority: 15 U.S.C. 772(b) and 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.

Title: FERC-921, Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data from Regional Transmission Organization and Independent System Operators.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0257.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-921 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: The collection of data in FERC-921 is an effort by the Commission, implemented under Order No. 760, 1 to detect potential anti-competitive or manipulative behavior or ineffective market rules by requiring Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO) to electronically submit, on a continuous basis, data relating to physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors, financial transmission rights, internal bilateral contracts, uplift, and interchange pricing. Although provision was made by the Commission that market monitoring units (MMUs) may provide datasets, all data for this collection has (and is expected to continue to) come from each RTO or ISO and not the MMUs. Therefore, any associated burden is counted as burden on RTO and ISO.

While the ongoing delivery of data under FERC-921 is continuous and routine, each RTO or ISO makes sporadic changes to its individual market with Commission approval. When those changes occur, the RTO or ISO may need to change the data being routinely sent to the Commission to ensure compliance with Order No. 760. Such changes typically require respondents to alter the ongoing delivery of data under FERC-921. The burden associated with a change varies considerably based on the significance of the specific change; therefore, the estimate below is intended to reflect the incremental burden for an average change. Based on historical patterns, staff estimates there to be about one and a half changes of this nature per RTO or ISO per year.

Type of Respondent: Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO).

The Commission published a 60-day Paperwork Reduction Act Notice  2 on May 13, 2021 and no comments were received.