Child and Adult Care Food Program institutions face continued challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. To help alleviate some of those challenges, Section 3 of the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-158) provides temporary additional funding for each meal and supplement served. This additional reimbursement amount will be available beginning July 1, 2022 and ending on June 30, 2023. The law temporarily provides an additional reimbursement in the amount of 10 cents for each meal and supplement served under the program authorized by section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Act (42 U.S. C. 1766). Additionally, the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-158) authorized a tier II family or group day care home described in subsection (f)(3)(A)(iii) of section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766) to be considered a tier I family or group day care home for purposes of the program authorized under that section for the same period. This temporary measure will provide tier II homes with tier I reimbursement rates only for the time period beginning July 1, 2022 and ending on June 30, 2023.

Pursuant to sections 4, 11, and 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753, 1759a and 1766), section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) and 7 CFR 226.4, 226.12 and 226.13 of the Program regulations, notice is hereby given of the new payment rates for institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). As provided for under the law, all rates in the CACFP must be revised annually, on July 1, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, for the most recent 12-month period. These rates are in effect during the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023.

The following national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks are in effect from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. Due to a higher cost of living, the reimbursements for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam use the figures specified for the contiguous States. These rates do not include the value of USDA Foods or cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods, which institutions receive as additional assistance for each lunch or supper served to participants under the Program. A notice announcing the value of USDA Foods and cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods is published separately in the Federal Register . Adjustments to the national average payment rates for all meals served under the Child and Adult Care Food Program are rounded down to the nearest whole cent.

The changes in the national average payment rates for centers reflect a 7.40 percent increase during the 12-month period from May 2021 to May 2022 (from 303.481 in May 2021, as previously published in the Federal Register , to 325.952 in May 2022) in the food away from home series of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

Payments for breakfasts served are: Contiguous States —paid rate—45 cents (12 cent increase from 2021-2022 annual level), reduced price rate—1 dollar and 91 cents (24 cents increase), free rate—2 dollar and 21 cents (24 cents increase); Alaska —paid rate—64 cents (14 cent increase), reduced price rate—3 dollars and 18 cents (33 cents increase), free rate—3 dollars and 48 cents (33 cents increase); Hawaii —paid rate -50 cents (12 cent increase), reduced price rate—2 dollars and 26 cents (27 cents increase), free rate—2 dollars and 56 cents (27 cents increase).

Payments for lunch or supper served are: Contiguous States —paid rate—47 cents (12 cents increase from 2021-2022 annual level), reduced price rate—3 dollars and 63 cents (37 cents increase), free rate—4 dollars and 03 cents (37 cents increase); Alaska —paid rate—71 cents (14 cents increase), reduced price rate—6 dollars and 07 cents (53 cents increase), free rate—6 dollars and 47 cents (53 cents increase); Hawaii —paid rate—54 cents (13 cents increase), reduced price rate—4 dollars and 30 cents (42 cents increase), free rate—4 dollars and 70 cents (42 cents increase).

Payments for snack served are: Contiguous States —paid rate—19 cents (10 cents increase from 2021-2022 annual level), reduced price rate—64 cents (14 cents increase), free rate—1 dollar and 18 cents (18 cents increase); Alaska —paid rate—26 cents (12 cents increase), reduced price rate—97 cents (16 cents increase), free rate—1 dollar and 85 cents (22 cents increase); Hawaii —paid rate—21 cents (11 cent increase), reduced price rate—73 cents (15 cents increase), free rate—1 dollar and 36 cents (19 cents increase).

The changes in the food service payment rates for day care homes reflect a 11.91 percent increase during the 12-month period from May 2021 to May 2022 (from 255.516 in May 2021, as previously published in the Federal Register , to 285.953 in May 2022) in the food at home series of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

Payments  1 for breakfast served are: Contiguous States —Tier I—1 dollar and 66 cents (26 cents increase from 2021-2022 annual level) and Tier II—1 dollar and 66 cents (1 dollar and 15 cent increase); Alaska —Tier I—2 dollars and 59 cents (36 cent increase) and Tier II—2 dollars and 59 cents (1 dollar and 80 cent increase); Hawaii —Tier I—1 dollar and 91 cents (28 cent increase) and Tier II—1 dollar and 91 cents (1 dollar 33 cent increase).

Payments for lunch and supper served are: Contiguous States —Tier I—3 dollars and 04 cents (41 cents increase from 2021-2022 annual level) and Tier II—3 dollars and 04 cents (1 dollar and 45 cent increase); Alaska —Tier I—4 dollars and 87 cents (61 cents increase) and Tier II—4 dollars and 87 cents (2 dollar and 30 cent increase); Hawaii —Tier I—3 dollars and 55 cents (47 cents increase) and Tier II—3 dollars and 55 cents (1 dollar 69 cent increase).

Payments for snack served are: Contiguous States —Tier I—97 cents (19 cents increase from 2021—2022 annual level) and Tier II—97 cents (76 cents increase); Alaska —Tier I—1 dollar and 52 cents (25 cent increase) and Tier II—Tier I—1 dollar and 52 cents (1 dollar 17 cent increase); Hawaii —Tier I—1 dollar and 12 cents (21 cents increase) and Tier II—1 dollar and 12 cents (87 cents increase).

The changes in the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes reflect an 8.58 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2021 to May 2022 (from 269.195 in May 2021, as previously published in the Federal Register , to 292.296 in May 2022) in the series for all items of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

Monthly administrative payments to sponsors for each sponsored day care home are: Contiguous States —Initial 50 homes—137 dollars (11 dollars increase from 2021—2022 annual level), next 150 homes—104 dollars (8 dollars increase), next 800 homes—81 dollars (6 dollars increase), each additional home—72 dollars (6 dollars increase); Alaska —Initial 50 homes—221 dollars (17 dollars increase), next 150 homes—169 dollars (14 dollars increase), next 800 homes—132 dollars (11 dollars increase), each additional home—116 dollars (9 dollars increase); Hawaii —Initial 50 homes—160 dollars (13 dollars increase), next 150 homes—122 dollars (10 dollars increase), next 800 homes—95 dollars (7 dollars increase), each additional home—84 dollars (7 dollars increase).

The following chart illustrates the national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks in effect for the school year beginning July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2022 and includes the additional reimbursement authorized by the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-158).

The following chart shows the national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks in effect from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. These rates reflect the annual adjustments as required by the laws and regulations governing the Child and Adult Care Food Program and do not include the temporary increases authorized by Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-158).

This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice has been determined to be exempt under Executive Order 12866.

CACFP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.558 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 415.3-415.6).

This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to OMB review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3518).

Authority: Sections 4(b)(2), 11a, 17(c) and 17(f)(3)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753(b)(2), 1759a, 1766(f)(3)(B)) and section 4(b)(1)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773(b)(1)(B)).

School meal operators face continued challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. To help alleviate some of those challenges, temporary additional funding for school lunch and school breakfast has been authorized under Section 2 of the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-158). This temporary funding will provide an additional reimbursement in the amount of 40 cents for each lunch served under the school lunch program authorized under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751), and an additional reimbursement in the amount of 15 cents for each breakfast served under the breakfast program established by section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773). These additional reimbursement amounts shall only be available for the school year beginning July 1, 2022 and ending on June 30, 2023.

Special Milk Program for Children —Pursuant to section 3 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1772), the Department announces the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to non-needy children in a school or institution that participates in the Special Milk Program for Children. This rate is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.

National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs —Pursuant to sections 11 and 17A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, (42 U.S.C. 1759a and 1766a), and section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), the Department annually announces the adjustments to the National Average Payment Factors and to the maximum Federal reimbursement rates for lunches and afterschool snacks served to children participating in the National School Lunch Program and breakfasts served to children participating in the School Breakfast Program. Adjustments are prescribed each July 1, based on changes in the Food Away From Home series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.

Lunch Payment Levels —Section 4 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753) provides general cash for food assistance payments to States to assist schools in purchasing food. The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act provides two different section 4 payment levels for lunches served under the National School Lunch Program. The lower payment level applies to lunches served by school food authorities in which less than 60 percent of the lunches served in the school lunch program during the second preceding school year were served free or at a reduced price. The higher payment level applies to lunches served by school food authorities in which 60 percent or more of the lunches served during the second preceding school year were served free or at a reduced price.

To supplement these section 4 payments, section 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.1759(a)) provides special cash assistance payments to aid schools in providing free and reduced price lunches. The section 11 National Average Payment Factor for each reduced price lunch served is set at 40 cents less than the factor for each free lunch.

As authorized under sections 8 and 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1757 and 1759a), maximum reimbursement rates for each type of lunch are prescribed by the Department in this Notice. These maximum rates are to ensure equitable disbursement of Federal funds to school food authorities.

Performance-Based Reimbursement —In addition to the funding mentioned above, school food authorities certified as meeting the meal pattern and nutrition standard requirements set forth in 7 CFR parts 210 and 220 are eligible to receive performance-based cash assistance for each reimbursable lunch served (an additional eight cents per lunch available beginning July 1, 2022 and adjusted annually thereafter).

Afterschool Snack Payments in Afterschool Care Programs —Section 17A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766a) establishes National Average Payments for free, reduced price and paid afterschool snacks as part of the National School Lunch Program.

Breakfast Payment Factors —Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) establishes National Average Payment Factors for free, reduced price, and paid breakfasts served under the School Breakfast Program and additional payments for free and reduced price breakfasts served in schools determined to be in “severe need” because they serve a high percentage of needy children.

The following specific section 4, section 11, and section 17A National Average Payment Factors and maximum reimbursement rates for lunch, the afterschool snack rates, and the breakfast rates are in effect from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. Due to a higher cost of living, the average payments and maximum reimbursements for Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia uses figures specified for the contiguous States. These rates do not include the value of USDA Foods or cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods which schools receive as additional assistance for each meal served to participants under the Program. A notice announcing the value of USDA Foods and cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods is published separately in the Federal Register .

Adjustments to the national average payment rates for all lunches served under the National School Lunch Program, breakfasts served under the School Breakfast Program, and afterschool snacks served under the National School Lunch Program are rounded down to the nearest whole cent.

In addition to the adjustments to the national average payment rates, beginning July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023, Congress has authorized, under the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-158), an additional temporary 40 cents reimbursement for each lunch served under the National School Lunch Program and an additional temporary 15 cents reimbursement for each breakfast served under the School Breakfast Program.

For the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to a non-needy child in a school or institution that participates in the Special Milk Program is 27.00 cents reflecting an increase of 5 cents from the School Year (SY) 2021-2022 level. This change is based on the 22.74 percent increase in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products from May 2021 to May 2022.

As a reminder, schools or institutions with pricing programs that elect to serve milk free to eligible children continue to receive the average cost of a half-pint of milk (the total cost of all milk purchased during the claim period divided by the total number of purchased half-pints) for each half-pint served to an eligible child.

Overall, payments for the National School Lunch Program and the Afterschool Snack Program increased from last year's payments due to additional funds for lunch reimbursement made available under the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-158) and a 7.40 percent increase in the national average payment rates for schools and residential child care institutions for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the Food Away From Home series during the 12-month period May 2021 to May 2022 (from a level of 303.481 in May 2021, as previously published in the Federal Register , to 325.952 in May 2022).

These changes are reflected below.

Section 4 National Average Payment Factors —In school food authorities that served less than 60 percent free and reduced price lunches in SY 2020-2021, the payments for meals served are: Contiguous States —paid rate—77 cents (42 cents increase from the SY 2021—2022 level), free and reduced price rate—77 cents (42 cents increase), maximum rate—85 cents (42 cents increase); Alaska —paid rate—1 dollar 1 cents (44 cents increase), free and reduced price rate—1 dollar 1 cents (44 cents increase), maximum rate—1 dollar 11 cents (43 cents increase); Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands —paid rate—84 cents (43 cents increase), free and reduced price rate—84 cents (43 cents increase), maximum rate—92 cents (43 cents increase).

In school food authorities that served 60 percent or more free and reduced price lunches in School Year 2020—2021, payments are: Contiguous States —paid rate—79 cents (42 cents increase from the SY 2021—2022 level), free and reduced price rate—79 cents (42 cents increase), maximum rate—85 cents (42 cents increase); Alaska —paid rate—1 dollar 3 cents (44 cents increase), free and reduced price rate—1 dollar 3 cents (44 cents increase), maximum rate—1 dollar 11 cents (43 cents increase); Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands —paid rate—86 cents (43 cents increase), free and reduced price rate—86 cents (43 cents increase), maximum rate—92 cents (43 cents increase).

School food authorities certified to receive the performance-based cash assistance will receive an additional 8 cents (adjusted annually) added to the above amounts as part of their section 4 payments.

Section 11 National Average Payment Factors — Contiguous States —free lunch—3 dollars and 56 cents (25 cents increase from the SY 2021—2022 level), reduced price lunch—3 dollars and 16 cents (25 cents increase); Alaska —free lunch—5 dollars and 76 cents (39 cents increase), reduced price lunch—5 dollars and 36 cents (39 cents increase); Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands —free lunch—4 dollars and 16 cents (29 cents increase), reduced price lunch—3 dollars and 76 cents (29 cents increase).

Afterschool Snacks in Afterschool Care Programs —The payments are: Contiguous States —free snack—1 dollar and 8 cents (8 cents increase from the SY 2021—2022 level), reduced price snack—54 cents (4 cents increase), paid snack—9 cents (no increase); Alaska —free snack -1 dollar and 75 cents (12 cents increase), reduced price snack—87 cents (6 cents increase), paid snack—16 cents (2 cents increase); Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands —free snack—1 dollar and 26 cents (9 cents increase), reduced price snack—63 cents (5 cent increase), paid snack—11 cents (1 cent increase).

Overall, payments for the National School Breakfast Program either remained the same or increased from last year's payments due to additional funds for breakfast reimbursement made available under the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-158) and a 7.40 percent increase in the national average payment rates for schools and residential child care institutions for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the Food Away from Home series during the 12-month period May 2021 to May 2022 (from a level of 303.481 in May 2021, as previously published in the Federal Register , to 325.952 in May 2022).

These changes are reflected below.

For schools “not in severe need” the payments are: Contiguous States —free breakfast—2 dollars and 26 cents (29 cents increase from the SY 2021—2022 level), reduced price breakfast—1 dollar and 96 cents (29 cents increase), paid breakfast—50 cents (17 cent increase); Alaska —free breakfast—3 dollars and 53 cents (38 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—3 dollars and 23 cents (38 cents increase), paid breakfast—69 cents (19 cent increase); Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands —free breakfast—2 dollars and 61 cents (32 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—2 dollars and 31 cents (32 cents increase), paid breakfast—55 cents (17 cents increase).

For schools in “severe need” the payments are: Contiguous States —free breakfast—2 dollars and 67 cents (32 cents increase from the SY 2021—2022 level), reduced price breakfast—2 dollars and 37 cents (32 cents increase), paid breakfast—50 cents (17 cent increase); Alaska —free breakfast—4 dollars and 21 cents (43 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—3 dollars and 91 cents (43 cents increase), paid breakfast—69 cents (19 cent increase); Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands —free breakfast—3 dollars and 09 cents (35 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—2 dollars and 79 cents (35 cents increase), paid breakfast—55 cents (17 cent increase).

Payment Chart Including Additional Temporary Reimbursement The following chart illustrates the temporary increased reimbursement for breakfast and lunch as authorized under the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-158). Lunch National Average Payment Factors have sections 4 and 11 already combined to indicate the per lunch amount; the maximum lunch reimbursement rates and the breakfast National Average Payment Factors including severe need schools. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. The payment factors and reimbursement rates used for the District of Columbia are those specified for the contiguous States.

The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request an extension of the current OMB approval to conduct a series of studies to research and evaluate how to improve data collection activities for data collection programs at the Census Bureau. These studies will explore how the Census Bureau can improve efficiency, data quality, and response rates and reduce respondent burden in future census and survey operations, evaluations and experiments.

This information collection will operate as a generic clearance. The estimated number of respondents and annual reporting hours requested cover both the known and yet to be determined tests. A generic clearance is needed for these tests because though each share similar methodology, the exact number of tests and the explicit details of each test to be performed has yet to be determined. Once information collection plans are defined, they will be submitted on an individual basis in order to keep OMB informed as these tests progress.

The Census Bureau plans to test the use of new and improved data collection techniques for self-enumeration and interviewer data-collection tasks surrounding and following the ongoing census and survey operations. The research and evaluation may include: developing alternative enumeration or follow-up questionnaires; usability issues; conducting interviews or debriefings; and non-English language training and interviews. To study enumeration, the Census Bureau may conduct the enumeration directly with a household member or knowledgeable respondent. The questions asked in these studies will be typical census or survey questions and questions related to that content, along with potential attitudinal and satisfaction debriefing questions.

The information will be collected through observations, self-response, face-face interviews, and/or telephone interviews.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0971.

Form Number(s): Not yet determined.

Type of Review: Regular submission, Request for an Extension, without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households, businesses or other for profit, farms.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 100,000 per year.

Estimated Time per Response: 25 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 41,667 hours annually.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: There is no cost to the respondent other than time to answer the information request.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary or Mandatory, depending on cited authority.

Legal Authority: Data collection for this project is authorized under the authorizing legislation for the questionnaire being tested. This may be Title 13, Sections 131, 141, 161, 181, 182, 193, and 301 for Census Bureau sponsored surveys, and Title 13 and 15 for surveys sponsored by other Federal agencies. We do not now know what other titles will be referenced, since we do not know what survey questionnaires will be pretested during the course of the clearance.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

On April 14, 2022, BFN requested that Commerce conduct an expedited CCR of the AD order on flanges from India  1 to find that BFN is the successor-in-interest to Bebitz. 2 On June 6, 2022, Commerce initiated a CCR and preliminarily determined that BFN is the successor-in-interest to Bebitz. 3 In the Initiation and Preliminary Results, we provided all interested parties with an opportunity to comment. 4 We received no comments from any interested party.

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 proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA 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 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 2004 NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as applied to a “military readiness activity.” The activity for which incidental take of marine mammals is being requested addressed here qualifies as a military readiness activity. 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.

In 2018, the U.S. Navy prepared an Overseas Environmental Assessment (OEA; referred to as an EA in this document) analyzing the project. Prior to issuing the IHA for the first year of this project, NMFS reviewed the 2018 EA and the public comments received, determined that a separate NEPA analysis was not necessary, and subsequently adopted the document and issued a NMFS Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in support of the issuance of an IHA (83 FR 48799; September 27, 2018).

In 2019, the U.S. Navy prepared a supplemental EA. Prior to issuing the IHA in 2019, NMFS reviewed the supplemental EA and the public comments received, determined that a separate NEPA analysis was not necessary, and subsequently adopted the document and issued a NMFS FONSI in support of the issuance of an IHA (84 FR 50007; September 24, 2019).

In 2020, the U.S. Navy submitted a request for a renewal of the 2019 IHA. Prior to issuing the renewal IHA, NMFS reviewed ONR's application and determined that the proposed action was identical to that considered in the previous IHA. Because no significantly new circumstances or information relevant to any environmental concerns had been identified, NMFS determined that the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA document was not necessary and relied on the supplement EA and FONSI from 2019 when issuing the renewal IHA in 2020 (85 FR 41560; July 10, 2020).

In 2021, the U.S. Navy submitted a request for an IHA for incidental take of marine mammals during continuation of ARA. NMFS reviewed the U.S. Navy's EA and determined it to be sufficient for taking into consideration the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from continuation of the ARA. NMFS subsequently adopted that EA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (86 FR 54931, October 5, 2021).

Accordingly, NMFS preliminarily has determined to adopt the U.S. Navy's OEA for Office of Naval Research Arctic Research Activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 2022-2025, provided our independent evaluation of the document finds that it includes adequate information analyzing the effects on the human environment of issuing the IHA. NMFS is a not cooperating agency on the U.S. Navy's OEA.

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 March 21, 2022, NMFS received a request from ONR for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to ARA in the Beaufort and eastern Chukchi Seas. The application was deemed adequate and complete on June 30, 2022. ONR's request is for take of beluga whales ( Delphinapterus leucas ; two stocks) and ringed seals ( Pusa hispida hispida ) by Level B harassment. Neither ONR nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

This proposed IHA would cover the fifth year of a larger project for which ONR obtained prior IHAs (83 FR 48799, September 27, 2018; 84 FR 50007, September 24, 2019; 85 FR 53333, August 28, 2020; 86 FR 54931, October 5, 2021) and may request take authorization for subsequent facets of the overall project. This IHA would be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance (mid-September 2022 to mid- September 2023). The larger project supports the development of an under-ice navigation system under the ONR Arctic Mobile Observing System (AMOS) project. ONR has complied with all the requirements ( e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHAs (83 FR 48799, September 27, 2018; 84 FR 50007, September 24, 2019; 85 FR 53333, August 28, 2020; 86 FR 54931, October 5, 2021).

ONR's ARA include scientific experiments to be conducted in support of the programs named above. Specifically, the project includes the Arctic Mobile Observing System (AMOS) experiments in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Project activities involve acoustic testing and a multi-frequency navigation system concept test using left-behind active acoustic sources. More specifically, these experiments involve the deployment of moored, drifting, and ice-tethered active acoustic sources from the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq. Another vessel will be used to retrieve the acoustic sources. Underwater sound from the acoustic sources may result in Level B harassment of marine mammals.

This proposed action would occur from mid-September 2022 through mid-September 2023. The 2022 cruise would leave from Nome, Alaska on September 14, 2022 using the R/V Sikuliaq and involve 120 hours of active source testing. During this first cruise, several acoustic sources would be deployed from the ship. Some acoustic sources will be left behind to provide year-round observation of the Arctic environment. Gliders deployed during the September 2022 cruise may be recovered before the research vessel departs the study area or during a September 2023 cruise. Up to seven fixed acoustic navigation sources transmitting at 900 Hertz (Hz) would remain in place for a year. Drifting and moored oceanographic sensors would record environmental parameters throughout the year. Autonomous weather stations and ice mass balance buoys would also be deployed to record environmental measurements throughout the year (Table 1). The research vessel is planned to return to Nome, Alaska on October 28, 2022. ONR will apply for a renewal or separate IHA, as appropriate, for activities conducted during the planned September 2023 cruise.

During the scope of this proposed project, other activities may occur at different intervals that would assist ONR in meeting the scientific objectives of the various projects discussed above. However, these activities are designated as de minimis sources in ONR's 2022-2023 IHA application (consistent with analyses presented in support of previous Navy ONR IHAs), or would not produce sounds detectable by marine mammals (see discussion on de minimis sources below). These include the deployment of a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) micromodem, acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP), and ice profilers (Table 2).

This proposed action would occur across the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in both the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, partially in the high seas north of Alaska, the Global Commons, and within a part of the Canadian EEZ (in which the appropriate permits would be obtained by the Navy) (Figure 1). The proposed action would primarily occur in the Beaufort Sea, but the analysis considers the drifting of active sources on buoys into the eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea. The closest point of the study area to the Alaska coast is 110 nm (204 km). The proposed study area is approximately 639,267 km 2 .

The ONR Arctic and Global Prediction Program supports two major projects: Stratified Ocean Dynamics of the Arctic (SODA) and AMOS. The SODA and AMOS projects have been previously discussed in association with previously issued IHAs (83 FR 40234, August 14, 2018; 84 FR 37240, July 31, 2019). However, only activities relating to the AMOS project will occur during the period covered by this proposed action.

The AMOS project constitutes the development of a new system involving very low (35 Hz)), low (900 Hz), and mid-frequency transmissions (10 kilohertz (kHz)). The AMOS project would utilize acoustic sources and receivers to provide a means of performing under-ice navigation for gliders and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs). This would allow for the possibility of year-round scientific observations of the environment in the Arctic. As an environment that is particularly affected by climate change, year-round observations under a variety of ice conditions are required to study the effects of this changing environment for military readiness, as well as the implications of environmental change to humans and animals. Very-low frequency technology is important in extending the range of navigation systems. The technology also has the potential to allow for development and use of navigational systems that would not be heard by some marine mammal species, and therefore would be less impactful overall.

Active acoustic sources would be lowered from the cruise vessel while stationary, deployed on gliders and UUVs, or deployed on fixed AMOS moorings. This project would use groups of drifting buoys with sources and receivers communicating oceanographic information to a satellite in near real time. These sources would employ low-frequency transmissions only (900 Hz).

The proposed action would utilize non-impulsive acoustic sources, although not all sources will cause take of marine mammals. Any marine mammal takes would only arise from the operation of non-impulsive active sources. Although not currently planned, ice breaking could occur as part of this proposed action if a research vessel needs to return to the study area before the end of the IHA period to ensure scientific objectives are met. In this case, ice breaking could result in potential Level B harassment takes.

Below are descriptions of the equipment and platforms that would be deployed at different times during the proposed action.

The R/V Sikuliaq would perform the research cruise in September 2022 and conduct testing of acoustic sources during the cruise, as well as leave sources behind to operate as a year-round navigation system observation. R/V Sikuliaq has a maximum speed of approximately 12 knots (6.2 m/s) with a cruising speed of 11 knots (5.7 m/s) (University of Alaska Fairbanks 2014). The R/V Sikuliaq is not an ice breaking ship, but an ice strengthened ship. It would not be icebreaking and therefore acoustic signatures of icebreaking for the R/V Sikuliaq are not relevant.

The ship to be used in September 2023 to retrieve any acoustic sources could potentially be the CGC Healy. CGC Healy travels at a maximum speed of 17 knots (8.7 m/s) with a cruising speed of 12 knots (6.2 m/s) (United States Coast Guard 2013), and a maximum speed of 3 knots (1.5 m/s) when traveling through 4.5 feet (1.07 m) of sea ice (United States Coast Guard 2013). While no icebreaking cruise on the CGC Healy is scheduled during the IHA period, need may arise. Therefore, for the purposes of this IHA application, an icebreaking cruise is considered.

The R/V Sikuliaq, CGC Healy, or any other vessel operating a research cruise associated with the proposed action may perform the following activities during their research cruises:

• Deployment of moored and/or ice-tethered passive sensors (oceanographic measurement devices, acoustic receivers);

• Deployment of moored and/or ice-tethered active acoustic sources to transmit acoustic signals;

• Deployment of UUVs;

• Deployment of drifting buoys, with or without acoustic sources; or,

• Recovery of equipment.

During the September 2022 cruise, active acoustic sources would be lowered from the cruise vessel while stationary, deployed on gliders and UUVs, or deployed on fixed AMOS moorings. This would be done for intermittent testing of the system components. The total amount of active source testing for ship-deployed sources used during the cruise would be 120 hours. The testing would take place near the seven source locations on Figure 1, with UUVs running tracks within the designated box. During this testing, 35 Hz, 900 Hz, and 10 kHz acoustic signals, as well as acoustic modems would be employed.

Up to seven fixed acoustic navigation sources transmitting at 900 Hz would remain in place for a year and continue transmitting during this time. These moorings would be anchored on the seabed and held in the water column with subsurface buoys. All sources would be deployed by shipboard winches, which would lower sources and receivers in a controlled manner. Anchors would be steel “wagon wheels” typically used for this type of deployment. Two very low frequency (VLF) sources transmitting at 35 Hz would be deployed in a similar manner. Two Ice Gateway Buoys (IGB) would also be configured with active acoustic sources. Autonomous vehicles would be able to navigate by receiving acoustic signals from multiple locations and triangulating. This is needed for vehicles that are under ice and cannot communicate with satellites. Source transmits would be offset by 15 minutes from each other ( i.e., sources would not be transmitting at the same time). All navigation sources would be recovered. The purpose of the navigation sources is to orient UUVs and gliders in situations when they are under ice and cannot communicate with satellites. For the purposes of this proposed action, activities potentially resulting in take would not be included in the fall 2023 cruise; a subsequent application would be provided by ONR depending on the scientific plan associated with that cruise.

The following in-water activities have been determined to be unlikely to result in take of marine mammals. These activities are described here but they are not discussed further in this document.

De minimis Sources —The Navy characterizes de minimis sources as those with the following parameters: Low source levels, narrow beams, downward directed transmission, short pulse lengths, frequencies outside known marine mammal hearing ranges, or some combination of these factors (Department of the Navy, 2013b). NMFS concurs with the Navy's determination that the sources they have identified here as de minimis are unlikely to result in take of marine mammals. The following are some of the planned de minimis sources which would be used during the proposed action: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) micromodem, ADCPs, ice profilers, and additional sources below 160 dB re 1 μPa used during towing operations. ADCPs may be used on moorings. Ice-profilers measure ice properties and roughness. The ADCPs and ice-profilers would all be above 200 kHz and therefore out of marine mammal hearing ranges, with the exception of the 75 kHz ADCP which has the characteristics and de minimis justification listed in Table 2. They may be employed on moorings or UUVs. Descriptions of some de minimis sources are discussed below and in Table 2. More detailed descriptions of these de minimis sources can be found in ONR's IHA application under Section 1.1.1.2.

Observations of ocean-ice interactions require the use of sensors that are moored and embedded in the ice. For the proposed action, it will not be required to break ice to do this, as deployments can be performed in areas of low ice-coverage or free floating ice. Sensors are deployed within a few dozen meters of each other on the same ice floe. Three types of sensors would be used: autonomous ocean flux buoys, Integrated Autonomous Drifters, and ice-tethered profilers. The autonomous ocean flux buoys measure oceanographic properties just below the ocean-ice interface. The autonomous ocean flux buoys would have ADCPs and temperature chains attached, to measure temperature, salinity, and other ocean parameters in the top 20 ft (6 m) of the water column. Integrated Autonomous Drifters would have a long temperate string extending down to 656 ft (200 m) depth and would incorporate meteorological sensors, and a temperature spring to estimate ice thickness. The ice-tethered profilers would collect information on ocean temperature, salinity and velocity down to 820 ft (250 m) depth.

Up to 20 Argo-type autonomous profiling floats may be deployed in the central Beaufort Sea. Argo floats drift at 4,921 ft (1,500 m) depth, profiling from 6,562 ft (2,000 m) to the sea surface once every 10 days to collect profiles of temperature and salinity.

Moored sensors would capture a range of ice, ocean, and atmospheric conditions on a year-round basis. These would be bottom anchored, sub-surface moorings measuring velocity, temperature, and salinity in the upper 1,640 ft (500 m) of the water column. The moorings also collect high-resolution acoustic measurements of the ice using the ice profilers described above. Ice velocity and surface waves would be measured by 500 kHz multibeam sonars from Nortek Signatures. The moored oceanographic sensors described above use only de minimis sources and are therefore not anticipated to have the potential for impacts on marine mammals or their habitat.

On-ice measurement systems would be used to collect weather data. These would include an Autonomous Weather Station and an Ice Mass Balance Buoy. The Autonomous Weather Station would be deployed on a tripod; the tripod has insulated foot platforms that are frozen into the ice. The system would consist of an anemometer, humidity sensor, and pressure sensor. The Autonomous Weather Station also includes an altimeter with a sound source that is de minimis due to its very high frequency (200 kHz). The Ice Mass Balance Buoy is a 20 ft (6 m) sensor string, which is deployed through a 2 inch (5 cm) hole drilled into the ice. The string is weighted by a 2.2 lb (1 kg) lead weight, and is supported by a tripod. The buoy contains a de minimis 200 kHz altimeter and snow depth sensor. Autonomous Weather Stations and Ice Mass Balance Buoys will be deployed, and will drift with the ice, making measurements. The instruments are destroyed as their host ice floes melt (likely in summer, roughly one year after deployment). After the instruments are deployed they cannot be recovered, and would sink to the seafloor as their host ice floes melted.

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

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, incorporated here by reference, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 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' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

Table 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this action, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, 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' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' 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' U.S. 2020 SARs ( e.g., Muto et al. 2021), with the exception of Beaufort Sea beluga whales. The 2020 SAR for the Beaufort Sea stock of beluga whales has temporarily been withdrawn for further review, therefore, the NMFS' U.S. 2021 draft SAR represents the most recent stock assessment for this stock. All values presented in Table 3 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2021 SARs) online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.

As indicated above, the two species (with three managed stocks) in Table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. While bowhead whales ( Balaena mysticetus ), gray whales ( Eschrichtius robustus ), bearded seals ( Erignathus barbatus ), spotted seals ( Phoca largha ), ribbon seals ( Histiophoca fasciata ), have been documented in the area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided below.

Due to the location of the study area ( i.e., northern offshore, deep water), there were no calculated exposures for the bowhead whale, gray whale, spotted seal, bearded seal, and ribbon seal from quantitative modeling of acoustic sources. Bowhead and gray whales are closely associated with the shallow waters of the continental shelf in the Beaufort Sea and are unlikely to be exposed to acoustic harassment from this activity (Carretta et al., 2018; Muto et al., 2018). Similarly, spotted seals tend to prefer pack ice areas with water depths less than 200 m during the spring and move to coastal habitats in the summer and fall, found as far north as 69-72° N (Muto et al., 2018). Although the study area includes some waters south of 72° N, the acoustic sources with the potential to result in take of marine mammals are not found below that latitude and spotted seals are not expected to be exposed. Ribbon seals are found year-round in the Bering Sea but may seasonally range into the Chukchi Sea (Muto et al., 2018). The proposed action occurs primarily in the Beaufort Sea, outside of the core range of ribbon seals, thus ribbon seals are not expected to be behaviorally harassed. Narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ) are considered extralimital in the project area and are not expected to be encountered. As no harassment is expected of the bowhead whale, gray whale, spotted seal, bearded seal, narwhal, and ribbon seal, these species will not be discussed further in this proposed notice.

The Navy has utilized Conn et al., (2014) in their IHA application as an abundance estimate for ringed seals, which is based upon aerial abundance and distribution surveys conducted in the U.S. portion Bering Sea in 2012 (171,418 ringed seals; Muto et al., 2021b). This value is likely an underestimate due to the lack of accounting for availability bias for seals that were in the water at the time of the surveys as well as not including seals located within the shorefast ice zone (Muto et al., 2021b). Muto et al., (2021b) notes that an accurate population estimate is likely larger by a factor of two or more. However, no accepted population estimate is present for Arctic ringed seals. Therefore, in the interest in making conservative decisions, NMFS will also adopt the Conn et al., (2014) abundance estimate (171,418) for further analyses and discussions on this proposed action by ONR.

In addition, the polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) and Pacific walrus ( Odobenus rosmarus ) may be found both on sea ice and/or in the water within the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea. These species are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not considered further in this document.

Beluga whales are distributed throughout seasonally ice-covered arctic and subarctic waters of the Northern Hemisphere (Gurevich, 1980), and are closely associated with open leads and polynyas in ice-covered regions (Hazard, 1988). Belugas are both migratory and residential (non-migratory), depending on the population. Seasonal distribution is affected by ice cover, tidal conditions, access to prey, temperature, and human interaction (Frost et al., 1985; Hauser et al., 2014).

There are five beluga stocks recognized within U.S. waters: Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, eastern Bering Sea, eastern Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea. Two stocks, the Beaufort Sea and eastern Chukchi Sea stocks, have the potential to occur in the location of this proposed action.

A migratory Biologically Important Area (BIA) for belugas in the Eastern Chukchi and Alaskan Beaufort Sea overlaps the southern and western portion of the proposed project site. One migration corridor is in use from April to May. The second corridor, located in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, is used by migrating belugas from September to October (Calambokidis et al., 2015). During the winter, they can be found foraging in offshore waters associated with pack ice. When the sea ice melts in summer, they move to warmer river estuaries and coastal areas for molting and calving (Muto et al., 2017). Annual migrations can span over thousands of kilometers. The residential Beaufort Sea populations participate in short distance movements within their range throughout the year. Based on satellite tags (Suydam et al., 2001; Hauser et al., 2014), there is some overlap in distribution with the eastern Chukchi Sea beluga whale stock.

During the winter, eastern Chukchi Sea belugas occur in offshore waters associated with pack ice. In the spring, they migrate to warmer coastal estuaries, bays, and rivers where they may molt (Finley, 1982; Suydam, 2009), give birth to, and care for their calves (Sergeant and Brodie, 1969). Eastern Chukchi Sea belugas move into coastal areas, including Kasegaluk Lagoon (outside of the proposed project site), in late June and animals are sighted in the area until about mid-July (Frost and Lowry, 1990; Frost et al., 1993). Satellite tags attached to eastern Chukchi Sea belugas captured in Kasegaluk Lagoon during the summer showed these whales traveled 593 nm (1,100 km) north of the Alaska coastline, into the Canadian Beaufort Sea within three months (Suydam et al., 2001). Satellite telemetry data from 23 whales tagged during 1998-2007 suggest variation in movement patterns for different age and/or sex classes during July-September (Suydam et al., 2005). Adult males used deeper waters and remained there for the duration of the summer; all belugas that moved into the Arctic Ocean (north of 75° N) were males, and males traveled through 90 percent pack ice cover to reach deeper waters in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean (79-80° N) by late July/early August. Adult and immature female belugas remained at or near the shelf break in the south through the eastern Bering Strait into the northern Bering Sea, remaining north of Saint Lawrence Island over the winter.

Ringed seals are the most common pinniped in the proposed project site and have wide distribution in seasonally and permanently ice-covered waters of the Northern Hemisphere (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, 2004). Throughout their range, ringed seals have an affinity for ice-covered waters and are well adapted to occupying both shore-fast and pack ice (Kelly, 1988c). Ringed seals can be found further offshore than other pinnipeds since they can maintain breathing holes in ice thickness greater than 6.6 ft (2 m) (Smith and Stirling, 1975). The breathing holes are maintained by ringed seals using their sharp teeth and claws found on their fore flippers. They remain in contact with ice most of the year and use it as a platform for molting in late spring to early summer, for pupping and nursing in late winter to early spring, and for resting at other times of the year (Muto et al., 2018).

Ringed seals have at least two distinct types of subnivean lairs: Haulout lairs and birthing lairs (Smith and Stirling, 1975). Haul-out lairs are typically single-chambered and offer protection from predators and cold weather. Birthing lairs are larger, multi-chambered areas that are used for pupping in addition to protection from predators. Ringed seals pup on both land-fast ice as well as stable pack ice. Lentfer (1972) found that ringed seals north of Utqiaġvik, Alaska (formally known as Barrow, Alaska) build their subnivean lairs on the pack ice near pressure ridges. Since subnivean lairs were found north of Utqiaġvik, Alaska, in pack ice, they are also assumed to be found within the sea ice in the proposed project site. Ringed seals excavate subnivean lairs in drifts over their breathing holes in the ice, in which they rest, give birth, and nurse their pups for 5-9 weeks during late winter and spring (Chapskii, 1940; McLaren, 1958; Smith and Stirling, 1975). Ringed seals are born beginning in March, but the majority of births occur in early April. About a month after parturition, mating begins in late April and early May.

In Alaskan waters, during winter and early spring when sea ice is at its maximum extent, ringed seals are abundant in the northern Bering Sea, Norton and Kotzebue Sounds, and throughout the Chukchi and Beaufort seas (Frost, 1985; Kelly, 1988c). Passive acoustic monitoring of ringed seals from a high frequency recording package deployed at a depth of 787 ft (240 m) in the Chukchi Sea 65 nautical miles (120 km) north-northwest of Utqiaġvik, Alaska detected ringed seals in the area between mid-December and late May over the 4 year study (Jones et al., 2014). In addition, ringed seals have been observed near and beyond the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ (Beland and Ireland, 2010). During the spring and early summer, ringed seals may migrate north as the ice edge recedes and spend their summers in the open water period of the northern Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (Frost, 1985). Foraging-type movements have been recorded over the continental shelf and north of the continental shelf waters (Von Duyke et al., 2020). During this time, sub-adult ringed seals may also occur in the Arctic Ocean Basin (Hamilton et al., 2015; Hamilton et al., 2017).

With the onset of fall freeze, ringed seal movements become increasingly restricted and seals will either move west and south with the advancing ice pack with many seals dispersing throughout the Chukchi and Bering Seas, or remaining in the Beaufort Sea (Crawford et al., 2012; Frost and Lowry, 1984; Harwood et al., 2012). Kelly et al., (2010b) tracked home ranges for ringed seals in the subnivean period (using shore-fast ice); the size of the home ranges varied from less than 1 up to 279 km 2 (median is 0.62 km 2 for adult males and 0.65 km 2 for adult females). Most (94 percent) of the home ranges were less than 3 km 2 during the subnivean period (Kelly et al., 2010b). Near large polynyas, ringed seals maintain ranges, up to 7,000 km 2 during winter and 2,100 km 2 during spring (Born et al., 2004). Some adult ringed seals return to the same small home ranges they occupied during the previous winter (Kelly et al., 2010b). The size of winter home ranges can vary by up to a factor of 10 depending on the amount of fast ice; seal movements were more restricted during winters with extensive fast ice, and were much less restricted where fast ice did not form at high levels (Harwood et al., 2015).

Of the five recognized subspecies of ringed seals, the Arctic ringed seal occurs in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea and is the only stock that occurs in U.S. waters. NMFS listed the Arctic ringed seal subspecies as threatened under the ESA on December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76706), primarily due to anticipated loss of sea ice through the end of the 21st century. Climate change presents a major concern for the conservation of ringed seals due to the potential for long-term habitat loss and modification (Muto et al., 2021). Based upon an analysis of various life history features and the rapid changes that may occur in ringed seal habitat, ringed seals are expected to be highly sensitive to climate change (Laidre et al., 2008; Kelly et al., 2010a).

On January 8, 2021, NMFS published a revised proposed rule for the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arctic Subspecies of the Ringed Seal (86 FR 1452). This proposed rule revises NMFS' December 9, 2014, proposed designation of critical habitat for the Arctic subspecies of the ringed seal under the ESA. NMFS identified the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species: (1) Snow-covered sea ice habitat suitable for the formation and maintenance of subnivean birth lairs used for sheltering pups during whelping and nursing, which is defined as areas of seasonal landfast (shorefast) ice and dense, stable pack ice, excluding any bottom-fast ice extending seaward from the coastline (typically in waters less than 2 m deep), that have undergone deformation and contain snowdrifts of sufficient depth, typically at least 54 cm deep; (2) Sea ice habitat suitable as a platform for basking and molting, which is defined as areas containing sea ice of 15 percent or more concentration, excluding any bottom-fast ice extending seaward from the coastline (typically in waters less than 2 m deep); and (3) Primary prey resources to support Arctic ringed seals, which are defined to be Arctic cod, saffron cod, shrimps, and amphipods. The revised proposed critical habitat designation comprises a specific area of marine habitat in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas, extending from mean lower low water to an offshore limit within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, including a portion of the ONR ARA Study Area (86 FR 1452; January 8, 2021). See the proposed ESA critical habitat rule for additional detail and a map of the proposed area.

The majority of the proposed study area was excluded from the proposed ringed seal critical habitat because the benefits of exclusion due to national security impacts outweighed the benefits of inclusion of this area (86 FR 1452; March 9, 2021). However, as stated in NMFS' second revised proposed rule for the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arctic Subspecies of the Ringed Seal (86 FR 1452; March 9, 2021), the excluded area contains one or more of the essential features of the Arctic ringed seal's critical habitat. However, the excluded area contains features that are found throughout the specific area designated as critical habitat (87 FR 19232, April 1, 2022), therefore even though this area is excluded from critical habitat designation, habitat with the physical and biological features essential for ringed seal conservation is still available to the species. A small portion of the study area overlaps with ringed seal critical habitat as shown in Figure 2. As described later and in more detail in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section, we expect minimal impacts to marine mammal habitat as a result of the ONR's activities, including impacts on prey availability.

Since June 1, 2018, elevated strandings of ringed seals, bearded seals, spotted seals, and several unidentified seals have occurred in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as of September 2019, have declared this event an Unusual Mortality Event (UME). A UME is defined under the MMPA as a stranding that is unexpected, involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population, and demands immediate response. From June 1, 2018 to January 7, 2022, there have been 368 dead seals reported, with 111 stranding in 2018, 164 in 2019, and 38 in 2020, and 55 in 2021, which is much greater than the average number of strandings of about 29 seals annually. All age classes of seals have been reported stranded, and a subset of seals have been sampled for genetics and harmful algal bloom/exposure, with a few having histopathology collected. Results are pending and investigation into the cause of the UME is ongoing, yet currently unknown. No ice seals have stranded in 2022, at the time of this publication, yet the UME is still considered ongoing.

There was a previous UME involving ice seals from 2011 to 2016, which was most active in 2011-2012. A minimum of 657 seals were affected. The UME investigation determined that some of the clinical signs were due to an abnormal molt, but a definitive cause of death for the UME was never determined. The number of stranded ice seals involved in this UME, and their physical characteristics, is not at all similar to the 2011-2016 UME, as the seals in 2018-2020 have not been exhibiting hair loss or skin lesions, which were a primary finding in the 2011-2016 UME. More detailed information is available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-life-distress/2018-2022-ice-seal-unusual-mortality-event-alaska.

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. 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, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc.). 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 decibel (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 4.

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.

This section includes a 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 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 may or may not impact marine mammal species or stocks.

Here, we first provide background information on marine mammal hearing before discussing the potential effects of the use of active acoustic sources on marine mammals.

Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in Hz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate (decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically measured using the dB scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the context of underwater sound pressure to one micropascal (1 μPa). One pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that all underwater sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 1 μPa.

Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. RMS is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). RMS accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.

When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.

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. Because 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.

Underwater sounds fall into one of two general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive (defined in the following paragraphs). 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). Please see Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts.

Impulsive sound sources ( e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients (ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005) and occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Impulsive sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features. However and as previously noted, no impulsive acoustic sources will be used during ONR's proposed action.

Non-impulsive sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-impulsive sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses ( e.g., rapid rise time). Examples of non-impulsive sounds include those produced by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar sources that intentionally direct a sound signal at a target that is reflected back in order to discern physical details about the target. These active sources are used in navigation, military training and testing, and other research activities such as the activities planned by ONR as part of the proposed action. The duration of such sounds, as received at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant environment.

Please refer to the information given previously regarding sound, characteristics of sound types, and metrics used in this document. Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of highly variable impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and various other factors. The potential effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources can potentially result in one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; Gotz et al., 2009). The degree of effect is intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received level, distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure. In general, sudden, high level sounds can cause hearing loss, as can longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss of hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise within an animal's hearing range. In this section, we first describe specific manifestations of acoustic effects before providing discussion specific to the proposed activities in the next section.

Permanent Threshold Shift —Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can be total or partial deafness, while in most cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).

Temporary Threshold Shift —TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends.

When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear ( i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical injury ( e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to constitute auditory injury.

Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals—PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008)—but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least several decibels above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing mild TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall et al., 2007). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS thresholds for impulse sounds (such as impact pile driving pulses as received close to the source) are at least six dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and PTS cumulative sound exposure level (SEL) thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative SEL thresholds (Southall et al., 2007).

Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. 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. 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 occurs during a time 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.

Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall et al. (2019) for summaries). For cetaceans, published data on the onset of TTS are limited to the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise, and for pinnipeds in water, measurements of TTS are limited to harbor seals, elephant seals, and California sea lions. These studies examine hearing thresholds measured in marine mammals before and after exposure to intense sounds. The difference between the pre-exposure and post-exposure thresholds can be used to determine the amount of threshold shift at various post-exposure times. The amount and onset of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds at low frequencies, well below the region of best sensitivity, are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity (i.e., a low frequency noise would need to be louder to cause TTS onset when TTS exposure level is higher), as shown for harbor porpoises and harbor seals (Kastelein et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2020a, 2020b). In addition, TTS can accumulate across multiple exposures, but the resulting TTS will be less than the TTS from a single, continuous exposure with the same SEL (Finneran et al., 2010; Kastelein et al., 2014; Kastelein et al., 2015a; Mooney et al., 2009). This means that TTS predictions based on the total, cumulative SEL will overestimate the amount of TTS from intermittent exposures such as sonars and impulsive sources. Nachtigall et al. (2018) and Finneran (2018) describe the measurements of hearing sensitivity of multiple odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer whale) when a relatively loud sound was preceded by a warning sound. These captive animals were shown to reduce hearing sensitivity when warned of an impending intense sound. Based on these experimental observations of captive animals, the authors suggest that wild animals may dampen their hearing during prolonged exposures or if conditioned to anticipate intense sounds. Another study showed that echolocating animals (including odontocetes) might have anatomical specializations that might allow for conditioned hearing reduction and filtering of low-frequency ambient noise, including increased stiffness and control of middle ear structures and placement of inner ear structures (Ketten et al., 2021). Data available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes are currently lacking (NMFS, 2018).

Behavioral effects —Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior ( e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality habitat. 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., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010; Southall et al., 2021). 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). A review of marine mammal responses to anthropogenic sound was first conducted by Richardson (1995). More recent reviews (Nowacek et al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2012; Gomez et al., 2016) addressed studies conducted since 1995 and focused on observations where the received sound level of the exposed marine mammal(s) was known or could be estimated. Gomez et al. (2016) conducted a review of the literature considering the contextual information of exposure in addition to received level and found that higher received levels were not always associated with more severe behavioral responses and vice versa. Southall et al. (2016) states that results demonstrate that some individuals of different species display clear yet varied responses, some of which have negative implications, while others appear to tolerate high levels, and that responses may not be fully predictable with simple acoustic exposure metrics ( e.g., received sound level). Rather, the authors state that differences among species and individuals along with contextual aspects of exposure ( e.g., behavioral state) appear to affect response probability.

The following subsections provide examples of behavioral responses that provide an idea of the variability in behavioral responses that would be expected given the differential sensitivities of marine mammal species to sound and the wide range of potential acoustic sources to which a marine mammal may be exposed. Behavioral responses that could occur for a given sound exposure should be determined from the literature that is available for each species, or extrapolated from closely related species when no information exists, along with contextual factors. 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, 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, 2003). There are broad categories of potential response, which we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.

Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive ( e.g., Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013). Seals exposed to non-impulsive sources with a received sound pressure level within the range of calculated exposures (142-193 dB re 1 μPa), have been shown to change their behavior by modifying diving activity and avoidance of the sound source (Götz et al., 2010; Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Variations in dive behavior may reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities ( e.g., foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the type and magnitude of the response.

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; Melcón et al., 2012). In addition, behavioral state of the animal plays a role in the type and severity of a behavioral response, such as disruption to foraging ( e.g., Silve et al., 2016; Wensveen et al., 2017). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness consequences would require information on or 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. Goldbogen et al. (2013) indicate that disruption of feeding and displacement could impact individual fitness and health. However, for this to be true, we would have to assume that an individual could not compensate for this lost feeding opportunity by either immediately feeding at another location, by feeding shortly after cessation of acoustic exposure, or by feeding at a later time. There is no indication this is the case, particularly since unconsumed prey would likely still be available in the environment in most cases following the cessation of acoustic exposure. Information on or estimates of the energetic requirements of the individuals and the relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history stage of the animal will help better inform a determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness consequences.

Respiration naturally varies with different behaviors, and variations in respiration rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Studies with captive harbor porpoises showed increased respiration rates upon introduction of acoustic alarms (Kastelein et al., 2001; Kastelein et al., 2006) and emissions for underwater data transmission (Kastelein et al., 2005). Various studies also have shown that species and signal characteristics are important factors in whether respiration rates are unaffected or change, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure ( e.g., Kastelein et al., 2005, 2006, 2018; Gailey et al., 2007; Isojunno et al., 2018).

Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007; Rolland et al., 2012). Killer whales off the northwestern coast of the United States have been observed to increase the duration of primary calls once a threshold in observing vessel density ( e.g., whale watching) was reached, which has been suggested as a response to increased masking noise produced by the vessels (Foote et al., 2004; NOAA, 2014). In some cases, however, animals may cease or alter sound production in response to underwater sound ( e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Castellote et al., 2012; Cerchio et al., 2014). Studies also demonstrate that even low levels of noise received far from the noise source can induce changes in vocalization and/or behavioral responses (Blackwell et al., 2013, 2015).

Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). Avoidance is qualitatively different from the flight response, but also differs in the magnitude of the response ( i.e., directed movement, rate of travel, etc. ). Oftentimes avoidance is temporary, and animals return to the area once the noise has ceased. Acute avoidance responses have been observed in captive porpoises and pinnipeds exposed to a number of different sound sources (Kastelein et al., 2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et al., 2006a; Kastelein et al., 2006b; Kastelein et al., 2015b; Kastelein et al., 2015c; Kastelein et al., 2018). Short-term avoidance of seismic surveys, low frequency emissions, and acoustic deterrents have also been noted in wild populations of odontocetes (Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; Goold and Fish, 1998; Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Hiley et al., 2021) and to some extent in mysticetes (Malme et al., 1984; McCauley et al., 2000; Gailey et al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does not occur ( e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 2006).

Forney et al. (2017) described the potential effects of noise on marine mammal populations with high site fidelity, including displacement and auditory masking. In cases of Western gray whales (Weller et al., 2006) and beaked whales, anthropogenic effects in areas where they are resident or exhibit site fidelity could cause severe biological consequences, in part because displacement may adversely affect foraging rates, reproduction, or health, while an overriding instinct to remain in the area could lead to more severe acute effects. Avoidance of overlap between disturbing noise and areas and/or times of particular importance for sensitive species may be critical to avoiding population-level impacts because (particularly for animals with high site fidelity) there may be a strong motivation to remain in the area despite negative impacts.

A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response ( e.g., directed movement, rate of travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings (Evans and England, 2001). There are limited data on flight response for marine mammals in water; however, there are examples of this response in species on land. For instance, the probability of flight responses in Dall's sheep Ovis dalli dalli (Frid, 2003), hauled-out ringed seals Phoca hispida (Born et al., 1999), Pacific brant ( Branta bernicl nigricans ), and Canada geese ( B. canadensis ) increased as a helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft more directly approached groups of these animals (Ward et al., 1999). However, it should be noted that response to a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may influence the response.

Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that habituation is appropriately considered as a “progressive reduction in response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor beneficial,” rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response. For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to loud impulsive sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).

Data on hooded seals ( Cystophora cristata ) indicate avoidance responses to signals above 160-170 dB re 1 μPa (Kvadsheim et al., 2010), and data on grey ( Halichoerus grypus ) and harbor seals indicate avoidance response at received levels of 135-144 dB re 1 μPa (Götz et al., 2010). In each instance where food was available, which provided the seals motivation to remain near the source, habituation to the signals occurred rapidly. In the same study, it was noted that habituation was not apparent in wild seals where no food source was available (Götz et al., 2010). This implies that the motivation of the animal is necessary to consider in determining the potential for a reaction. In one study to investigate the under-ice movements and sensory cues associated with under-ice navigation of ice seals, acoustic transmitters (60-69 kHz at 159 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) were attached to ringed seals (Wartzok et al., 1992a, Wartzok et al., 1992b). An acoustic tracking system then was installed in the ice to receive the acoustic signals and provide real-time tracking of ice seal movements. Although the frequencies used in this study are at the upper limit of ringed seal hearing, the ringed seals appeared unaffected by the acoustic transmissions, as they were able to maintain normal behaviors ( e.g., finding breathing holes).

Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention ( i.e., when a response consists of increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects have generally not been observed in marine mammals, but studies involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates and efficiency ( e.g., Beauchamp and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through reduction of fitness ( e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998).

Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive behavioral responses.

Behavioral response studies have been conducted on odontocete responses to sonar. Sperm whales were exposed to pulsed active sonar (1-2 kHz) at moderate source levels and high source levels, as well as continuously active sonar at moderate levels for which the summed energy (SEL) equaled the summed energy of the high source level pulsed sonar (Isojunno et al., 2020). Foraging behavior did not change during exposures to moderate source level sonar, but non-foraging behavior increased during exposures to high source level sonar and to the continuous sonar, indicating that the energy of the sound (the SEL) was a better predictor of response than SPL. Time of day of the exposure was also an important covariate in determining the amount of non-foraging behavior, as were order effects ( e.g. the SEL of the previous exposure); Isojunno et al. (2021) found that higher SELs reduced sperm whale buzzing ( i.e., foraging). Duration of continuous sonar activity also appears to impact sperm whale displacement and foraging activity (Stanistreet et al., 2022). During long bouts of sonar lasting up to 13 consecutive hours, occurring repeatedly over an 8 day naval exercise (median and maximum SPL = 120 dB and 164 dB), sperm whales substantially reduced how often they produced clicks during sonar, indicating a decrease or cessation in foraging behavior. Curé et al. (2021) also found that sperm whales exposed to continuous and pulsed active sonar were more likely to produce low or medium severity responses with higher cumulative SEL. Specifically, the probability of observing a low severity response increased to 0.5 at approximately 173 dB SEL and observing a medium severity response reached a probability of 0.35 at cumulative SELs between 179 and 189 dB. These results again demonstrate that the behavioral state and environment of the animal mediates the likelihood of a behavioral response, as do the characteristics ( e.g., frequency, energy level) of the sound source itself.

Many of the contextual factors resulting from the behavioral response studies ( e.g., close approaches by multiple vessels or tagging) would not occur during the proposed action. Odontocete behavioral responses to acoustic transmissions from non-impulsive sources used during the proposed action would likely be a result of the animal's behavioral state and prior experience rather than external variables such as ship proximity; thus, any behavioral responses are expected to be minimal and short term.

To assess the strength of behavioral changes and responses to external sounds and SPLs associated with changes in behavior, Southall et al., (2007) developed and utilized a severity scale, which is a 10 point scale ranging from no effect (labeled 0), effects not likely to influence vital rates (low; labeled from 1 to 3), effects that could affect vital rates (moderate; labeled 4 to 6), to effects that were thought likely to influence vital rates (high; labeled 7 to 9). Southall et al., (2021) updated the severity scale by integrating behavioral context ( i.e., survival, reproduction, and foraging) into severity assessment. For non-impulsive sounds ( i.e., similar to the sources used during the proposed action), data suggest that exposures of pinnipeds to sources between 90 and 140 dB re 1 μPa do not elicit strong behavioral responses; no data were available for exposures at higher received levels for Southall et al., (2007) to include in the severity scale analysis. Reactions of harbor seals were the only available data for which the responses could be ranked on the severity scale. For reactions that were recorded, the majority (17 of 18 individuals/groups) were ranked on the severity scale as a 4 (defined as moderate change in movement, brief shift in group distribution, or moderate change in vocal behavior) or lower; the remaining response was ranked as a 6 (defined as minor or moderate avoidance of the sound source).

Behavioral Responses to Ice Breaking Noise- Ringed seals on pack ice showed various behaviors when approached by an icebreaking vessel. A majority of seals dove underwater when the ship was within 0.5 nm (0.93 km) while others remained on the ice. However, as icebreaking vessels came closer to the seals, most dove underwater. Ringed seals have also been observed foraging in the wake of an icebreaking vessel (Richardson et al., 1995). In studies by Alliston (1980; 1981), there was no observed change in the density of ringed seals in areas that had been subject to icebreaking. Alternatively, ringed seals may have preferentially established breathing holes in the ship tracks after the icebreaker moved through the area. Previous observations and studies using icebreaking ships provide a greater understanding in how seal behavior may be affected by a vessel transiting through the area.

Adult ringed seals spend up to 20 percent of the time in subnivean lairs during the winter season (Kelly et al., 2010b). Ringed seal pups spend about 50 percent of their time in the lair during the nursing period (Lydersen and Hammill, 1993). During the warm season ringed seals haul out on the ice. In a study of ringed seal haul out activity by Born et al., (2002), ringed seals spent 25-57 percent of their time hauled out in June, which is during their molting season. Ringed seal lairs are typically used by individual seals (haulout lairs) or by a mother with a pup (birthing lairs); large lairs used by many seals for hauling out are rare (Smith and Stirling, 1975). If the non-impulsive acoustic transmissions are heard and are perceived as a threat, ringed seals within subnivean lairs could react to the sound in a similar fashion to their reaction to other threats, such as polar bears (their primary predators), although the type of sound would be novel to them. Responses of ringed seals to a variety of human-induced sounds ( e.g., helicopter noise, snowmobiles, dogs, people, and seismic activity) have been variable; some seals entered the water and some seals remained in the lair. However, in all instances in which observed seals departed lairs in response to noise disturbance, they subsequently reoccupied the lair (Kelly et al., 1988d).

Ringed seal mothers have a strong bond with their pups and may physically move their pups from the birth lair to an alternate lair to avoid predation, sometimes risking their lives to defend their pups from potential predators (Smith, 1987). If a ringed seal mother perceives the proposed acoustic sources as a threat, the network of multiple birth and haulout lairs allows the mother and pup to move to a new lair (Smith and Hammill, 1981; Smith and Stirling, 1975). The acoustic sources from this proposed action are not likely to impede a ringed seal from finding a breathing hole or lair, as captive seals have been found to primarily use vision to locate breathing holes and no effect to ringed seal vision would occur from the acoustic disturbance (Elsner et al., 1989; Wartzok et al., 1992a). It is anticipated that a ringed seal would be able to relocate to a different breathing hole relatively easily without impacting their normal behavior patterns.

Stress responses — 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).

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 will 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). These and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine mammals will 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).

Auditory masking — 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., 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.

Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is anthropogenic, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or significantly altering behavior patterns. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.

The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals ( e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as animals change their vocalization behavior ( e.g., Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can be tested directly in captive species ( e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild ( e.g., Branstetter et al., 2013).

Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals ( e.g., from vessel traffic), contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking. Due to the transient nature of marine mammals to move and avoid disturbance, masking is not likely to have long-term impacts on marine mammal species within the proposed study area.

Potential Effects on Prey — The marine mammal species in the study area feed on marine invertebrates and fish. Studies of sound energy effects on invertebrates are few, and primarily identify behavioral responses. It is expected that most marine invertebrates would not sense the frequencies of the acoustic transmissions from the acoustic sources associated with the proposed action. Although acoustic sources used during the proposed action may briefly impact individuals, intermittent exposures to non-impulsive acoustic sources are not expected to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of widespread marine invertebrate populations.

The fish species residing in the study area include those that are closely associated with the deep ocean habitat of the Beaufort Sea. Nearly 250 marine fish species have been described in the Arctic, excluding the larger parts of the sub-Arctic Bering, Barents, and Norwegian Seas (Mecklenburg et al., 2011). However, only about 30 are known to occur in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea (Christiansen and Reist, 2013). Although hearing capability data only exist for fewer than 100 of the 32,000 named fish species, current data suggest that most species of fish detect sounds from 50 to 100 Hz, with few fish hearing sounds above 4 kHz (Popper, 2008). It is believed that most fish have the best hearing sensitivity from 100 to 400 Hz (Popper, 2003). Fish species in the study area are expected to hear the low-frequency sources associated with the proposed action, but most are not expected to detect sound from the mid-frequency sources. Human generated sound could alter the behavior of a fish in a manner than would affect its way of living, such as where it tries to locate food or how well it could find a mate. Behavioral responses to loud noise could include a startle response, such as the fish swimming away from the source, the fish “freezing” and staying in place, or scattering (Popper, 2003). Misund (1997) found that fish ahead of a ship showed avoidance reactions at ranges of 160 to 489 ft (49 to 149 m). Avoidance behavior of vessels, vertically or horizontally in the water column, has been reported for cod and herring, and was attributed to vessel noise. While acoustic sources associated with the proposed action may influence the behavior of some fish species, other fish species may be equally unresponsive. Overall effects to fish from the proposed action would be localized, temporary, and infrequent.

Effects to Physical and Foraging Habitat —Ringed seals haul out on pack ice during the spring and summer to molt (Reeves et al., 2002; Born et al., 2002). Additionally, some studies (Alliston, 1980; 1981) suggested that ringed seals might preferentially establish breathing holes in ship tracks after vessels move through the area. The amount of ice habitat disturbed by activities is small relative to the amount of overall habitat available and there will be no permanent or longer-term loss or modification of physical ice habitat used by ringed seals. Vessel movement would have minimal effect on physical beluga habitat as beluga habitat is solely within the water column. Furthermore, the deployed sources that would remain in use after the vessels have left the survey area have low duty cycles and lower source levels, and any impacts to the acoustic habitat of marine mammals would be minimal.

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

Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines “harassment” as (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where the behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B harassment).

Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns and/or TTS for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to ONR's acoustic sources. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.

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

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

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 —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 or exposure context ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the source), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to predict ( e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 micropascal (re 1 μPa)) for continuous ( e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive ( e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent ( e.g., scientific sonar) sources.

In this case, NMFS is proposing to adopt the Navy's approach to estimating incidental take by Level B harassment from the active acoustic sources for this action, which includes use of dose response functions. The Navy's dose response functions were developed to estimate take from sonar and similar transducers, but are not applicable to ice breaking. Multi-year research efforts have conducted sonar exposure studies for odontocetes and mysticetes (Miller et al., 2012; Sivle et al., 2012). Several studies with captive animals have provided data under controlled circumstances for odontocetes and pinnipeds (Houser et al., 2013a; Houser et al., 2013b). Moretti et al., (2014) published a beaked whale dose-response curve based on passive acoustic monitoring of beaked whales during U.S. Navy training activity at Atlantic Underwater Test and Evaluation Center during actual Anti-Submarine Warfare exercises. This information necessitated the update of the behavioral response criteria for the U.S. Navy's environmental analyses.

Southall et al., (2007), and more recently Southall et al., (2019), synthesized data from many past behavioral studies and observations to determine the likelihood of behavioral reactions at specific sound levels. While in general, the louder the sound source the more intense the behavioral response, it was clear that the proximity of a sound source and the animal's experience, motivation, and conditioning were also critical factors influencing the response (Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019). After examining all of the available data, the authors felt that the derivation of thresholds for behavioral response based solely on exposure level was not supported because context of the animal at the time of sound exposure was an important factor in estimating response. Nonetheless, in some conditions, consistent avoidance reactions were noted at higher sound levels depending on the marine mammal species or group allowing conclusions to be drawn. Phocid seals showed avoidance reactions at or below 190 dB re 1 μPa at 1m; thus, seals may actually receive levels adequate to produce TTS before avoiding the source.

Odontocete behavioral criteria for non-impulsive sources were updated based on controlled exposure studies for dolphins and sea mammals, sonar, and safety (3S) studies where odontocete behavioral responses were reported after exposure to sonar (Antunes et al., 2014; Houser et al., 2013b; Miller et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2012). For the 3S study, the sonar outputs included 1-2 kHz up- and down-sweeps and 6-7 kHz up-sweeps; source levels were ramped up from 152-158 dB re 1 μPa to a maximum of 198-214 re 1 μPa at 1 m. Sonar signals were ramped up over several pings while the vessel approached the mammals. The study did include some control passes of ships with the sonar off to discern the behavioral responses of the mammals to vessel presence alone versus active sonar.

The controlled exposure studies included exposing the Navy's trained bottlenose dolphins to mid-frequency sonar while they were in a pen. Mid-frequency sonar was played at 6 different exposure levels from 125-185 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The behavioral response function for odontocetes resulting from the studies described above has a 50 percent probability of response at 157 dB re 1 μPa. Additionally, distance cutoffs (20 km for MF cetaceans) were applied to exclude exposures beyond which the potential of significant behavioral responses is considered to be unlikely.

The pinniped behavioral threshold was updated based on controlled exposure experiments on the following captive animals: hooded seal, gray seal ( Halichoerus grypus ), and California sea lion (Götz et al., 2010; Houser et al., 2013a; Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Hooded seals were exposed to increasing levels of sonar until an avoidance response was observed, while the grey seals were exposed first to a single received level multiple times, then an increasing received level. Each individual California sea lion was exposed to the same received level ten times. These exposure sessions were combined into a single response value, with an overall response assumed if an animal responded in any single session. The resulting behavioral response function for pinnipeds has a 50 percent probability of response at 166 dB re 1 μPa. Additionally, distance cutoffs (10 km for pinnipeds) were applied to exclude exposures beyond which the potential of significant behavioral responses is considered unlikely. For additional information regarding marine mammal thresholds for PTS and TTS onset, please see NMFS (2018) and Table 6.

Empirical evidence has not shown responses to non-impulsive acoustic sources that would constitute take beyond a few km from a non-impulsive acoustic source, which is why NMFS and the Navy conservatively set distance cutoffs for pinnipeds and mid-frequency cetaceans (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a). The cutoff distances for fixed sources are different from those for moving sources, as they are treated as individual sources in Navy modeling given that the distance between them is significantly greater than the range to which environmental effects can occur. Fixed source cutoff distances used were 2.7 nm (5 km) for pinnipeds and 5.4 nm (10 km) for beluga whales (Table 5). As some of the on-site drifting sources could come closer together, the drifting source cutoffs applied were 5.4 nm (10 km) for pinnipeds and 10.8 nm (20 km) for beluga whales (Table 5). Regardless of the received level at that distance, take is not estimated to occur beyond these cutoff distances. Range to thresholds were calculated for the noise associated with icebreaking in the study area. These all fall within the same cutoff distances as non-impulsive acoustic sources; range to behavioral threshold for both beluga whales and ringed seal were under 2.7 nm (5 km), and range to TTS threshold for both under 15 m (Table 5).

Level A harassment —NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) 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). ONR's proposed activity includes the use of non-impulsive acoustic sources; however, Level A harassment is not expected as a result of the proposed activities nor is it proposed to be authorized by NMFS.

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

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of marine mammals likely to be exposed to underwater acoustic transmissions above the previously described threshold criteria during the proposed action. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included marine mammal density estimates obtained from the Kaschner et al. (2006) habitat suitability model and Cañadas et al. (2020), marine mammal depth occurrence (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b), oceanographic and mammal hearing data, and criteria and thresholds for levels of potential effects. The quantitative analysis consists of computer modeled estimates and a post-model analysis to determine the number of potential animal exposures. The model calculates sound energy propagation from the proposed non-impulsive acoustic sources, the sound received by animat (virtual animal) dosimeters representing marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled activity, and whether the sound received by animats exceeds the thresholds for effects.

The Navy developed a set of software tools and compiled data for estimating acoustic effects on marine mammals without consideration of behavioral avoidance or mitigation. These tools and data sets serve as integral components of the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO). In NAEMO, animats are distributed non-uniformly based on species-specific density, depth distribution, and group size information and animats record energy received at their location in the water column. A fully three-dimensional environment is used for calculating sound propagation and animat exposure in NAEMO. Site-specific bathymetry, sound speed profiles, wind speed, and bottom properties are incorporated into the propagation modeling process. NAEMO calculates the likely propagation for various levels of energy (sound or pressure) resulting from each source used during the training event.

NAEMO then records the energy received by each animat within the energy footprint of the event and calculates the number of animats having received levels of energy exposures that fall within defined impact thresholds. Predicted effects on the animats within a scenario are then tallied and the highest order effect (based on severity of criteria; e.g., PTS over TTS) predicted for a given animat is assumed. Each scenario, or each 24-hour period for scenarios lasting greater than 24 hours is independent of all others, and therefore, the same individual marine mammal (as represented by an animat in the model environment) could be impacted during each independent scenario or 24-hour period. In few instances, although the activities themselves all occur within the proposed study location, sound may propagate beyond the boundary of the study area. Any exposures occurring outside the boundary of the study area are counted as if they occurred within the study area boundary. NAEMO provides the initial estimated impacts on marine species with a static horizontal distribution ( i.e., animats in the model environment do not move horizontally).

There are limitations to the data used in the acoustic effects model, and the results must be interpreted within this context. While the best available data and appropriate input assumptions have been used in the modeling, when there is a lack of definitive data to support an aspect of the modeling, conservative modeling assumptions have been chosen ( i.e., assumptions that may result in an overestimate of acoustic exposures):

• Animats are modeled as being underwater, stationary, and facing the source and therefore always predicted to receive the maximum potential sound level at a given location ( i.e., no porpoising or pinnipeds' heads above water);

• Animats do not move horizontally (but change their position vertically within the water column), which may overestimate physiological effects such as hearing loss, especially for slow moving or stationary sound sources in the model;

• Animats are stationary horizontally and therefore do not avoid the sound source, unlike in the wild where animals would most often avoid exposures at higher sound levels, especially those exposures that may result in PTS;

• Multiple exposures within any 24-hour period are considered one continuous exposure for the purposes of calculating potential threshold shift, because there are not sufficient data to estimate a hearing recovery function for the time between exposures; and

• Mitigation measures were not considered in the model. In reality, sound-producing activities would be reduced, stopped, or delayed if marine mammals are detected by visual monitoring.

Due to these inherent model limitations and simplifications, model-estimated results should be further analyzed, considering such factors as the range to specific effects, avoidance, and the likelihood of successfully implementing mitigation measures. This analysis uses a number of factors in addition to the acoustic model results to predict acoustic effects on marine mammals, as described below in the Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Estimation section.

The underwater radiated noise signature for icebreaking in the central Arctic Ocean by CGC Healy during different types of ice-cover was characterized in Roth et al. (2013). The radiated noise signatures were characterized for various fractions of ice cover. For modeling, the 8/10 and 3/10 ice cover were used. Each modeled day of icebreaking consisted of 16 hours of 8/10 ice cover and 8 hours of 3/10 ice cover. The sound signature of the 5/10 icebreaking activities, which would correspond to half-power icebreaking, was not reported in (Roth et al. 2013); therefore, the full-power signature was used as a conservative proxy for the half-power signature. Icebreaking was modeled for eight days total. Since ice forecasting cannot be predicted more than a few weeks in advance, it is unknown if icebreaking would be needed to deploy or retrieve the sources after one year of transmitting. Therefore, the potential for an icebreaking cruise on CGC Healy was conservatively analyzed within this request for an IHA. As the R/V Sikuliaq is not expected to be ice breaking, acoustic noise created by ice breaking is only modeled for the CGC Healy. Figures 5a and 5b in Roth et al. (2013) depict the source spectrum level versus frequency for 8/10 and 3/10 ice cover, respectively. The sound signature of each of the ice coverage levels was broken into 1-octave bins (Table 7). In the model, each bin was included as a separate source on the modeled vessel. When these independent sources go active concurrently, they simulate the sound signature of CGC Healy. The modeled source level summed across these bins was 196.2 dB for the 8/10 signature and 189.3 dB for the 3/10 ice signature. These source levels are a good approximation of the icebreaker's observed source level (provided in Figure 4b of (Roth et al., 2013)). Each frequency and source level was modeled as an independent source, and applied simultaneously to all of the animats within NAEMO. Each second was summed across frequency to estimate sound pressure level (root mean square [SPL RMS ]). Any animat exposed to sound levels greater than 120 dB was considered a take by Level B harassment. For PTS and TTS, determinations, sound exposure levels were summed over the duration of the test and the transit to the deep water deployment area. The method of quantitative modeling for icebreaking is considered to be a conservative approach; therefore, the number of takes estimated for icebreaking are likely an overestimate and would not be expected to reach that level.

For non-impulsive sources, NAEMO calculates the SPL and SEL for each active emission during an event. This is done by taking the following factors into account over the propagation paths: bathymetric relief and bottom types, sound speed, and attenuation contributors such as absorption, bottom loss, and surface loss. Platforms such as a ship using one or more sound sources are modeled in accordance with relevant vehicle dynamics and time durations by moving them across an area whose size is representative of the testing event's operational area.

In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information that will inform the take calculations. We also describe how the marine mammal occurrence information is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.

The beluga whale density numbers utilized for quantitative acoustic modeling are from the Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Department of the Navy 2014). Where available ( i.e., June through 15 October over the continental shelf primarily), density estimates used were from Duke density modeling based upon line-transect surveys (Cañadas et al., 2020). The remaining seasons and geographic area were based on the habitat-based modeling by Kaschner et al. (2006) and Kaschner (2004). Density for beluga whales was not distinguished by stock and varied throughout the project area geographically and monthly; the range of densities in the project area during September I shown in Table 8. The density estimates for ringed seals are based on the habitat suitability modeling by Kaschner et al., (2006) and Kaschner (2004) and shown in Table 8 as well.

NOAA's U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Program Office has prepared a draft environmental assessment of potential impacts for the installation of a high frequency radar (HFR) at Hightower Beach Park, in the City of Satellite Beach, Florida.

The HFR would be installed south and shoreward of the parking lot at Hightower Beach Park, approximately 100 ft. (30 meters) away. Coordinates: Latitude: 28.194372° N; Longitude: 80.594403° W (WGS 84 datum).

The proposed action at Hightower Beach Park HFR installation is part of a large, on-going initiative to fill HFR coverage gaps along the southeast coastline. HFR systems measure the speed and direction of ocean surface currents in near real time. The HFR systems are managed by Southeast Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association (SECOORA) and the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®), which is a national-regional partnership working to provide new tools and forecasts to improve safety, enhance the economy, and protect our environment. IOOS was created by the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11), and amended by the Coordinated Ocean Observation and Research Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-271, Title I), codified at (33 U.S.C. 3601-3610).

Surface current mapping is integral to research, supporting oceanographic, fisheries, and meteorological forecasting activities. Surface current mapping is also vital for U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue activities, monitoring and tracking hazardous materials, monitoring water quality, including tracking harmful algal blooms, and supporting marine navigation.

IOOS proposes that the installation and operation of the HFR would have no significant impact on the environment. The EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), as well as the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11), as amended by the Coordinated Ocean Observation and Research Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-271, Title I), codified at (33 U.S.C. 3601-3610).

The SSC's Groundfish Subcommittee will discuss the availability of ageing structures collected by the states and NMFS in fishery sampling and surveys that may inform stock assessments prioritized for 2023 and 2025. The SSC's Groundfish Subcommittee will recommend how ageing labs should prioritize the ageing of these structures to optimize the availability of data for 2023 and 2025 stock assessments. These recommendations will be provided to the SSC and the Pacific Council for their deliberations at their September meetings.

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

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ( kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov ; (503) 820-2412) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Army Recruiting Information: Army Recruiting Information Support System and Accessions Information Environment; OMB Control Number 0702-AAIE.

Needs and Uses: The required collection of information provides U.S. Army field recruiters with an automated tool to collect information on all prospective U.S. Army, Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Army Cadet Command, U.S. Army Military Academy candidates, enlistees, officers and health profession personnel voluntarily requesting entrance into active duty. The required information collected is used to create the initial personnel record/data to prescreen perspective applicants, line officers and health professionals to determine if they meet established mandated qualifications for induction and processing into the U.S. Army. The information is also collected to process security clearances for those individuals requiring clearances for sensitive and classified positions.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 1,000,000.

Number of Respondents: 250,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 250,000.

Average Burden per Response: 4 hours.

Frequency: On occasion.

The respondents are recruiting applicants (accessions) which includes, civilians, veterans and cross component recruits. Other collection instruments/documents are completed by applicants and recruiters into the system of record as applicable to their recruiting and application purposes. All completed instruments of the collection reside in the system of record which has safeguards in place to protect privacy information. Both the electronic online Army Recruiting Information Support System (ARISS) and Accessions Information Environment (AIE) systems provide a comprehensive integration, interface and standardization of all programs that manage personnel resources in support of recruiting and collecting personnel private information to induct Army applicants into the U.S. Army. The current (legacy) system ARISS, will eventually be subsumed by the emergent AIE system.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation Economic Adjustment Data System; OMB Control Number 0704-0625.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 62.

Responses per Respondent: 6.

Annual Responses: 372.

Average Burden per Response: 100 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 620 hours.

Needs and Uses: The Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation in coordination with other Federal Agencies, delivers a program of technical and financial assistance to enable states and communities to plan and carry out civilian responses to workforce, business, and community needs arising from Defense actions; cooperate with military installations and leverage public and private capabilities to deliver public infrastructure and services to enhance the military mission and achieve facility and infrastructure savings; and increase military, civilian, and industrial readiness and resiliency, and support military families. The Economic Adjustment Data System supports this mission by providing a platform for authorized grant applicants to submit their application packages, and for grant awardees to submit quarterly or semi-annual performance reports. Respondents will be States, U.S. Territories, counties, municipalities, other political subdivisions of a state, special purpose units of a state or local government, other instrumentalities of a state or local government, and tribal nations supporting a military installation or the defense industrial base.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit Institutions.

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: Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation Scholarship Program; DD Forms 3067-2, 3067-4, 3067-7, 3067-8, 3067-9, 3067-11, 3067-12, 3067-13, 3067-15; OMB Control Number 0704-0466.

Needs and Uses: Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation Scholarship Program (SMART) is designed to increase the number of new civilian science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) entrants to the DoD. Additionally, the SMART Program develops and retains current DoD civilian STEM employees that are critical to the national security functions of the DoD and are needed in the DoD's workforce. SMART awards scholarships, ranging from 1.5 to 5 years, to undergraduate and graduate level students pursuing a degree in one of 21 technical disciplines. Upon graduation, scholars fulfill a service commitment with the DoD facility that nominated the scholar for an award. The information collection activity under review is a statutory and functional requirement necessary to administer the scholarship program.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 31,920.

Number of Respondents: 2,800 (a percentage of respondents complete one or multiple instruments).

Responses per Respondent: 3.8.

Annual Responses: 10,640.

Average Burden per Response: 3 hours.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Unmet Needs of Transgender Military Patients at Madigan Army Medical Center; OMB Control Number 0720-MAMC.

Needs and Uses: This collection is necessary in order to identify the unmet needs of transgender patients at Madigan Army Medical Center. Policy changes (and subsequent reversal) regarding transgender military members has limited transgender patient care and has led to confusion around services provided. Military providers do not generally have experience or special training in caring for the transgender population and may lack the expertise needed for optimal patient care. This activity will develop and distribute an anonymous survey to accomplish the goal of identifying these unmet needs in order to find areas for improvement and optimize transgender care at Madigan Army Medical Center.

Affected Public: Federal Government.

Annual Burden Hours: 59.

Number of Respondents: 59.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 59.

Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: The GlobalNET Collection; OMB Control Number 0704-0558.

Needs and Uses: The purpose of the GlobalNET system is to provide a collaborative social networking environment/capability where students, alumni, faculty, partners, and other community members and subject matter experts can find relevant and timely information about pertinent subject matter experts and conduct required training. GlobalNET also collects information on students in order to allow regional center personnel to manage students while enrolled at regional centers.

Affected Public: Individuals and households.

Annual Burden Hours: 500.

Number of Respondents: 6,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 6,000.

Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: DLA Police Center Records; DLA Form 635; OMB Control Number 0704-0514.

Needs and Uses: The DLA Police Center system houses data of civilian and military personnel of DLA, contractor employees, and other persons who have committed or are suspected of having committed any criminal act (felony or misdemeanor), as well as any violations of laws, regulations, or ethical standards on DLA-controlled activities or facilities. The information is used by DLA police officers, DLA installation support offices, and the DLA Office of General Counsel (OGC) to monitor progress of cases and to develop non-personal statistic data on crime and criminal investigative support for the future. DLA OGC also uses the data to review cases, determine appropriate legal action, and coordinate on all available remedies. Information is released to DLA managers who use the information to determine actions required to correct the causes of loss and to take appropriate action against DLA employees or contractors in cases of their involvement. Records are also used by DLA police to monitor the progress of incidents, identify crime-conducive conditions, and prepare crime vulnerability assessments.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 1,000.

Number of Respondents: 2,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 2,000.

Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office Victim-Related Inquiries; DD Form 2985, DD Form 2985-1; OMB Control Number 0704-0565.

Needs and Uses: This information collection requirement is necessary to facilitate a timely response and appropriate resolution to inquiries from DoD sexual assault victims/survivors, support personnel and others. Collection of this information is used to support victims and survivors of sexual assault in their recovery and to maintain a database of inquiries that documents the nature and status of inquiries in order to provide adequate follow-up services and inform sexual assault prevention and response program and policy improvements while promoting victim recovery. Military sexual assault victims, parents, other family members, and friends requesting assistance can contact the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) by completing the DD Form 2985, “Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office Request for Assistance.” After receiving permission from the requesting individual, the request for assistance is referred to the appropriate agency for action to facilitate a resolution.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 75 hours.

Number of Respondents: 150.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 150.

Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Qualified Facility List Application; DLA Form 2507; OMB Control Number 0704-AQFL.

Needs and Uses: The information collected via DLA Form 2507 will be used to validate hazardous waste disposal facilities around the world. Prior to the U.S. Government sending hazardous waste to a disposal facility, the facility must undergo a vetting process to ensure they are properly permitted, insured, and operating within local, state, and/or national regulations.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Annual Burden Hours: 25.

Number of Respondents: 250.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 250.

Average Burden per Response: 6 minutes.

Frequency: As required.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Survey of Retired General and Flag Officers; OMB Control Number 0704-RGFO.

Needs and Uses: During the previous legislative proposal season, counsel recommended that prior to approval of the legislative proposal, the agency provide evidence that retired three and four-star flag and general officers did not apply as a DoD Highly Qualified Expert-Senior Mentors due to the requirement to file an annual public 278 financial disclosure. The best evidence is a survey of recent retirees of the population.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 5.

Number of Respondents: 30.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 30.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Frequency: One-time.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Department of Defense Security Agreement; DD Form 441, DD Form 441-1; OMB Control Number 0704-0194.

Needs and Uses: This information collection requirement is necessary for inspecting and monitoring the contractors, licensees, and grantees who require or will require access to, or who store or will store classified information; and for determining the eligibility for access to classified information of contractors, licensees, and grantees and their respective employees.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 1608.4.

Number of Respondents: 4,021.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 4,021.

Average Burden per Response: 24 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Department of Defense Education Activity Research Request Program; DoDEA Form 1304.01-F1; OMB Control Number 0704-0457.

Type of Request: Revision.

Number of Respondents: 50.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 50.

Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.

Annual Burden Hours: 50 hours.

Needs and Uses: The Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Research Study Request form is administered annually and is used to conduct research involving DoDEA schools, teachers, principals, students, and parents. DoDEA receives requests from researchers both internal to DoDEA as well as outside the Federal government or DoD, to conduct research studies in DoDEA schools and districts. This information collection is needed to aid in the systematic and consistent collection of information on proposed research in accordance with guidelines established in DoDEA Administrative Instruction 1304.01, “Research Request Program.”

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: Naval Academy Candidate Application Package; USNA Forms 1110/7, 5710/1, 5710/2, 1531/3, 1110/5, 1110/21, 5500/31, 1531/11, 1531/16, 1531/178, and 1531/17; OMB Control Number 0703-0036.

Needs and Uses: This information requirement is used to determine the eligibility, competitive standing, and the scholastic and leadership potential of candidates for an appointment to the United States Naval Academy (USNA). Prior performance, including academic achievements, involvement in extracurricular activities and performance in leadership positions, has been found to be an excellent predictor of success. Without this information, the Naval Academy's ability to recruit qualified candidates will be seriously impacted. An analysis of the information collected is made by the Admissions Board in order to gauge the qualifications of individual candidates. Respondents are applicants for admission to the USNA, persons interested in applying for admission to the USNA, school officials for those applicants, Chain of Command officials for active duty applicants, person's providing recommendations for applicants, Blue and Gold Officers, Embassy or Naval Attachés for international applicants from other countries, and local law enforcement officials.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 135,484.

Number of Respondents: 114,188.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 114,188.

Average Burden per Response: 71.19 minutes.

Frequency: As required.

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

Title of Collection: Guaranty Agency Financial Report.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0026.

Type of Review: An extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 432.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 23,760.

Abstract: The Department of Education (ED) is requesting renewal by extension of the information collection 1845-0026 for the Guaranty Agency Financial Report. There has been no change to the underlying statute or regulations.

The Guaranty Agency Financial Report is used by a guaranty agency to request payments of reinsurance for defaulted student loans; make payments for amounts due ED, for collections on default and lender of last resort loan (default) claims on which reinsurance has been paid and for refunding amounts previously paid for reinsurance claims. The form is also used to determine required reserve levels for agencies; and to collect debt information as required for the “Report on Accounts and Loans Receivable Due from the Public,” SF 220-9 (Schedule 9 Report) as required by the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Section 40511 of the BIL  2 provides $225 million in funding supporting resilient and efficient building codes, and directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a competitive program enabling sustained cost-effective implementation of updated building energy codes. In accordance with Section 40511, DOE intends to issue a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) entitled “Building Energy Codes, Resilient and Efficient Codes Implementation”. The aim of this anticipated FOA is to support successful, widespread and sustained implementation of updated building energy codes by states, local governments, and across the U.S. and range of affected stakeholders. More information is available via the DOE Building Energy Codes Program at https://www.energycodes.gov/RECI-codes-workshop.

DOE previously published, on April 18, 2022, in the Federal Register a request for information (RFI) (DE-FOA-0002755) and held a public workshop related to Section 40511 of the BIL preceding this Notice. See 87 FR 22874. Through the RFI, DOE requested public input regarding the solicitation process and structure of a potential FOA, considering a range of issues and approaches which enable sustained, cost-effective implementation of updated building energy codes, and in accordance with Section 40511. The RFI was issued on April 12, 2022, and associated public workshop was held on April 27, 2022. More information is available at: https://www.energycodes.gov/RECI-codes-workshop.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 21, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Section 105 of the CAA provides grant funding to air pollution control agencies for the prevention and control of air pollution or implementation of national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. In accordance with 40 CFR 35.145(a), the Regional Administrator may provide air pollution control agencies up to three-fifths of the approved costs of implementing programs for the prevention and control of air pollution. CAA Section 105 grants require a cost share (also referred to as a match requirement) of 40%. Program activities relevant to the match consist of both recurring and non-recurring (unique, one-time only) expenses. In addition, air pollution control agencies must meet a maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement in accordance with section 105(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7405.

The MOE provision requires that an eligible agency spend at least the same dollar level of funds as it did in the previous grant year for the costs of recurring activities. Specifically, section 105(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(1), provides that, “No agency shall receive any grant under this section during any fiscal year when its expenditures of non-Federal funds for recurrent expenditures for air pollution control programs will be less than its expenditures were for such programs during the preceding fiscal year.” However, pursuant to CAA section 105(c)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(2), the EPA may still award a grant to an agency not meeting the requirements of section 42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(1), “. . . if the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, determines that a reduction in expenditures is attributable to a non-selective reduction in the expenditures in the programs of all Executive branch agencies of the applicable unit of Government.” These statutory requirements are repeated in the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 35.140-35.148. The EPA issued a memorandum dated September 30, 2011, entitled “Updated Information for Determining a Non-Selective Reduction” with guidance to recipients on what constitutes a nonselective reduction. In consideration of the legislative history, the guidance clarified that a non-selective reduction does not necessarily mean that each executive branch agency needs to be reduced in equal proportion. However, it must be clear to the EPA, from the weight of evidence, that a recipient's CAA-related air program is not being disproportionately impacted or singled out for a reduction.

A section 105 grant recipient must submit a final federal financial report no later than 90 days from the close of its grant period that documents all of its federal and non-federal expenditures for the completed period. The recipient seeking an adjustment to its MOE for that period must provide the rationale and the documentation necessary to enable the EPA to determine that a nonselective reduction has occurred. In order to expedite that determination, the recipient must provide details of the budget action and the comparative fiscal impacts on all the jurisdiction's executive branch agencies, and the recipient's air program. The recipient needs to identify any executive branch agencies or programs that should be excepted from comparison and explain why. The recipient must provide evidence that the air program is not being singled out for a reduction or being disproportionately reduced. Documentation in key areas is needed including budget data specific to the recipient's air program, and comparative budget data between the recipient's air program, the agency containing the air program, and the other executive branch agencies. The EPA may also request information from the recipient about how impacts on its program operations will affect its ability to meet its CAA obligations and requirements, and documentation that explains the cause of the reduction, such as legislative changes or the issuance of a new executive order.

In FY 2021, the EPA awarded the VCAPCD $1,106,518, which represented approximately 10% of the VCAPCD budget. In FY2022, the EPA intends to award the VCAPCD $1,115,038, which represents approximately 12% of the VCAPCD budget.

VCAPCD's final federal financial report for FY2020 indicated that VCAPCD's MOE level was $6,055,144. VCAPCD's final federal financial report for FY2021 indicates that VCAPCD's expenditure on recurrent activities is $5,620,253. That level of expenditure is not sufficient to meet the MOE requirements for FY2021 under section 105 because it is not equal to or greater than the MOE for the previous fiscal year.

In order for the VCAPCD to be eligible to receive its FY2022 CAA section 105 grant, the EPA must make a determination (after notice and an opportunity for a public hearing) that the reduction in expenditures from 2020 to 2021 is attributable to a non-selective reduction in the expenditures in the programs of the VCAPCD.

The VCAPCD is a single-purpose air pollution control agency. It is the unit of government for CAA section 105(c)(2) purposes.

On February 7, 2022, the VCAPCD submitted a request to the EPA seeking a reduction for the required MOE for FY2021. The District provided supplemental information pertaining to its request on June 1, 2022. The VCAPCD explained that it was unable to meet its MOE requirement due to a decrease in reoccurring services and supplies expenses, particularly rent payments. VCAPCD was renting office space up until mid-2021 when they moved into a building they purchased to serve as their permanent office space. In FY2020 the District paid $626,800 in rent as a recurring cost. In FY2021, the District paid six months of rent, or $259,754, and categorized the cost as nonrecurring. Since moving into the new offices the District no longer pays rent and the decrease in expenditure significantly impacts VCAPCD's MOE from previous years. Additionally, the District experienced significant payroll changes impacting its overall budget. In FY2021 VCAPCD approved a general salary increase for all employees. Other changes included senior level employees retiring, with some positions filled by entry level staff at lower starting salaries, and other positions remaining vacant due to the conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Lastly, many services and supplies were postponed or reduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Travel for conferences, trainings, and seminars were cancelled, held virtually, or postponed.

The EPA proposes to find that the request for a reset of VCAPCD's MOE meets the requirements for a non-selective reduction under CAA section 105. The VCAPCD's reduction in rent as a recurrent expenditure, the inability to fill vacant positions created by retirements, and a significant cut back on expenditures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the reduction in expenditures.

The EPA proposes that the MOE for VCAPCD's FY2021 CAA section 105 grant be reduced to $5,520,253 to address the non-selective reduction of recurrent expenditures discussed above.

This notice constitutes a request for public comment and an opportunity for public hearing as required by the CAA. All written substantive comments received by August 25, 2022 on this proposal will be considered. The EPA will conduct a public hearing on this proposal only if a written request for such is received by the EPA by August 25, 2022. If no written request for a hearing is received or if the EPA determines that the issues raised are insubstantial, the EPA will proceed to the final action to award the fiscal year 2022 grant to VCAPCD.

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

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate 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; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: This ICR covers the following: (1) the collection of information under 40 CFR part 35, subpart O, which establishes the administrative requirements for cooperative agreements funded under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for state, federally-recognized Indian tribal governments, and political subdivision response actions; (2) the application of the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) by states as outlined by CERCLA section 105 that amends the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) to include criteria prioritizing releases throughout the United States before undertaking remedial action at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites; and (3) the remedial portion of the Superfund program as specified in CERCLA and the NCP. For cooperative agreements and Superfund state contracts for Superfund response actions, the information is collected from applicants and/or recipients of EPA assistance and is used to make awards, pay recipients, and collect information on how federal funds are being utilized. EPA requires this information to meet its federal stewardship responsibilities. Recipient responses are required to obtain a benefit (federal funds) under 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards to Non-Federal Entities” and under 40 CFR part 35, “State and Local Assistance.” For the Superfund site evaluation and the Hazard Ranking System, the states will apply the HRS by identifying and classifying those releases or sites that warrant further investigation. The HRS score is crucial since it is the primary mechanism used to determine whether a site is eligible to be included on the National Priorities List (NPL). Only sites on the NPL are eligible for Superfund-financed remedial actions. For the NCP information collection, some community involvement activities covered by this ICR are not required at every site ( e.g., Technical Assistance Grants) and depend very much on the community and the nature of the site and cleanup. All community activities seek to involve the public in the cleanup of the sites, gain the input of community members, and include the community's perspective on the potential future reuse of Superfund NPL sites. Community involvement activities can enhance the remedial process and increase community acceptance and the potential for productive and beneficial reuse of the sites.

Form Numbers: 6200-11.

Respondents/affected entities: State, Local or Tribal Governments; U.S. Territories; Communities.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain benefits (40 CFR part 35; CERCLA section 105, 40 CFR part 300).

Estimated number of respondents: 13,182 (total).

Frequency of response: Annually.

Total estimated burden: 196,557 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $463,497 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in estimates: There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This is because there was no current change in program requirements. EPA expects estimates to likely rise due to an increase in the respondent universe as a result of increased funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-58).

Section 105 of the CAA provides grant funding to air pollution control agencies for the prevention and control of air pollution or implementation of national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. In accordance with 40 CFR 35.145(a), the Regional Administrator may provide air pollution control agencies up to three-fifths of the approved costs of implementing programs for the prevention and control of air pollution. Air pollution control agencies are required to provide a 40% cost share (also referred to as a match requirement) to receive CAA Section 105 grants. Program activities relevant to the match consist of both recurring and non-recurring (unique, one-time only) expenses. In addition, section 105(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(1), requires grant recipients to meet a maintenance of effort (MOE).

The MOE provision requires that an eligible agency spend at least the same dollar level of funds as it did in the previous grant year but only for the costs of recurring activities. Specifically, section 105(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(1), provides that “No agency shall receive any grant under this section during any fiscal year when its expenditures of non-Federal funds for recurrent expenditures for air pollution control programs will be less than its expenditures were for such programs during the preceding fiscal year.” However, pursuant to CAA section 105(c)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(2), the EPA may still award a grant to an agency not meeting the requirements of section 105(c)(1), “. . . if the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, determines that a reduction in expenditures is attributable to a non-selective reduction in the expenditures in the programs of all Executive branch agencies of the applicable unit of Government.” These statutory requirements are repeated in the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 35.140-35.148. The EPA issued a memorandum dated September 30, 2011, entitled “ Updated Information for Determining a Non-Selective Reduction” with additional guidance to recipients on what constitutes a nonselective reduction. In consideration of legislative history, the guidance clarified that a non-selective reduction does not necessarily mean that each executive branch agency needs to be reduced in equal proportion. However, it must be clear to the EPA, from the weight of evidence, that a recipient's CAA-related air program is not being disproportionately impacted or singled out for a reduction.

A section 105 grant recipient must submit a final federal financial report no later than 120 days from the close of its grant period that documents all of its federal and non-federal expenditures for the completed period. The recipient seeking an adjustment to its MOE for that period must provide the rationale and the documentation necessary to enable the EPA to make a determination that a nonselective reduction has occurred. In order to expedite that determination, the recipient must provide details of the budget action and the comparative fiscal impacts on all the jurisdiction's executive branch agencies and the recipient's air program. The recipient needs to identify any executive branch agencies or programs that should be excepted from comparison and explain why. The recipient must provide evidence that the air program is not being singled out for a reduction or being disproportionately reduced. Documentation in key areas is needed including budget data specific to the recipient's air program, and comparative budget data between the recipient's air program, the agency containing the air program, and the other executive branch agencies. The EPA may also request information from the recipient about how impacts on its program operations will affect its ability to meet its CAA obligations and requirements; and documentation which explains the cause of the reduction, such as legislative changes or the issuance of a new executive order.

In fiscal year (FY) 2021, the EPA awarded the SBCAPCD $527,490, which represented approximately 7% of the SBCAPCD budget. In FY2022, the EPA intends to award the SBCAPCD approximately $531,494, which represents approximately 7% of the SBCAPCD budget.

SBCAPCD's final federal financial report for FY2020 indicated that SBCAPCD's MOE level was $7,890,365. The MOE level for FY2021 was reduced to $7,790,365 after formal approval of a non-selective reduction. SBCAPCD's final federal financial report for FY2021 indicates that SBCAPCD's MOE level is at $7,318,050. This level of expenditure is not sufficient to meet the MOE requirements for FY2021 under section 105 because it is not equal to or greater than the MOE for the previous fiscal year.

In order for the SBCAPCD to be eligible to receive its FY2022 CAA section 105 grant, the EPA must make a determination (after notice and an opportunity for a public hearing) that the reduction in expenditures from 2021 to 2022 is attributable to a non-selective reduction in recurrent expenditures in the programs of the SBCAPCD.

The SBCAPCD is a single-purpose air pollution control agency. It is the unit of government for CAA section 105(c)(2) purposes. The main factor for SBCAPCD's MOE shortfall in FY2021 continues to stem from weakened economic conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in decreases in services and supplies. This budget category was decreased approximately $510,000 from FY19-20 to FY20-21, which is approximately an 11.5% decrease to this recurring expenditure.

The EPA proposes to find that the request for a reset of SBCAPCD's MOE meets the requirements for a non-selective reduction under CAA section 105. The SBCAPCD's MOE reduction resulted from a loss of revenues due to a significant cut back on expenditures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Increases in pass-through monies from the California Air Resources Board for multiple state grant projects also impacted the SBCAPCD's overall operating budget. However, such pass-through monies are not considered recurrent expenditures and are not included in calculating MOE.

The EPA proposes that the MOE for SBCAPCD's FY2021 CAA section 105 grant be reduced to $6,700,000 to address the non-selective reduction of expenditures discussed above.

This notice constitutes a request for public comment and an opportunity for public hearing as required by the CAA. All written comments received by August 25, 2022 on this proposal will be considered. The EPA will conduct a public hearing on this proposal only if a written request for such is received by the EPA by August 25, 2022. If no written request for a hearing is received or if the EPA determines that the issues raised are insubstantial, the EPA will proceed to the final action to award the fiscal year 2022 grant to the SBCAPCD.